online graduate students’ sense of community to …

ONLINE GRADUATE STUDENTS’ SENSE OF COMMUNITY TO THEIR HIGHER

LEARNING INSTITUTION: A MIXED METHODS STUDY

by

Shannon Renee Skelcher

A dissertation

submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Educational Technology

Boise State University

May 2019

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE

DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS

of the dissertation submitted by


Dissertation Title: Online Graduate Students’ Sense of Community to Their Higher

Learning Institution: A Mixed Methods Study

Date of Final Oral Examination: 6 March 2019

The following individuals read and discussed the dissertation submitted by student

Shannon Renee Skelcher, and they evaluated her presentation and response to questions

during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral

examination.

Dazhi Yang, Ph.D. Chair, Supervisory Committee

Chareen Lee Snelson, Ed.D. Member, Supervisory Committee

Jesús Trespalacios, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee

The final reading approval of the dissertation was granted by Dazhi Yang, Ph.D., Chair of

the Supervisory Committee. The dissertation was approved by the Graduate College.

iv

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Justin, who has been a constant

source of love, encouragement, and much needed humor throughout this journey.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A study on sense of community could not have been completed if it weren’t for

the community around me who helped see this project to fruition. I would especially like

to express my deepest gratitude to my mentor and dissertation advisor, Dr. Dazhi Yang

who provided me many opportunities over the last few years to hone my writing and

research skills and also provided a great model for academic excellence. I would also like

to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Jesús Trespalacios and Dr. Chareen Snelson,

for offering their respective expertise in this dissertation. Without their feedback, this

study would be sorely lacking. Also, I want to thank all of the students who participated

in each phase of this research, allowing for me to use their feelings and experiences to

better understand online student community.

Sense of community is one evolution in a long line of theory and practice directly

addressing the needs of learners at all levels of education. This study could not have been

completed if not for the detailed dedication of these researchers and their subjects. In

particular, thank you to the Community Science Project for allowing me to use the Sense

of Community Index-2 instrument within this study.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continued support

and encouragement throughout this endeavor. I would especially like to recognize my

late father, Shelldon, who instilled a love for education and lifelong learning in me. Also,

thank you Tom for your guidance and words of encouragement throughout this process.

vi

Finally, thank you Justin for believing in my and being the cheerleader I needed, when I

needed it.

vii

ABSTRACT

Establishing a sense of community is important for student success in online

environments. However, how online graduate students experience a sense of community

to the higher learning institution providing their courses or degree is an area not fully

explored. This study investigated how graduate students in a completely online program

perceived their sense of community to their institution. Further, this research examined

how the institution supported or could better support its students through services and/or

aid to develop a greater sense of connection and belonging among its online learners. A

mixed methods approach was utilized, gathering quantitative data using the Sense of

Community Index-2 survey, with subsequent semi-structured qualitative interviews

providing further insight into the quantitative outcome. Results of the survey indicate that

participants (N=91) reported a somewhat low sense of community and had the lowest

mean on the subscale of “membership”, referring to a student’s sense of belonging to a

community. Seven themes emerged from the qualitative interviews (N=10) that indicated

areas needing institutional support to improve a sense of community. The mixing of the

two data sets allowed for triangulation and provided insight into how the qualitative

themes supported the quantitative survey results. The mixed data revealed specific

services and aid that can be considered to improve the SCI-2 total index and subscale

scores. This study contributes to the understanding of how institutions can support and

improve online students’ sense of community, and provides recommendations for

services and/or aid that can be implemented online to serve this population.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xvi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1

Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

Background of the Study .........................................................................................2

Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................3

Research Questions ..................................................................................................4

Significance of Study ...............................................................................................5

Rationale for Methodology ......................................................................................6

Transparency of Insider Research ............................................................................8

Assumptions of the Study ........................................................................................9

Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................11

Introduction ............................................................................................................11

Theoretical Foundations.........................................................................................12

ix

Deconstructing Sense of Community ....................................................................14

Defining Sense of Community...................................................................15

Engagement and Collaboration ..................................................................16

Achievement and Perceived Learning .......................................................17

Promoting Sense of Community ............................................................................19

Online Sense of Community ......................................................................21

Social Presence ..........................................................................................21

Interaction ..................................................................................................23

Transactional Distance ...............................................................................25

Community of Inquiry ...............................................................................27

Evaluating a Sense of Community .........................................................................29

Online Classroom Community Scale .........................................................29

The Sense of Community Index Scale - 2 .................................................30

Synthesizing Sense of Community ........................................................................31

Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................34

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................35

Introduction ............................................................................................................35

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................36

Research Questions ................................................................................................36

Research Methodology ..........................................................................................38

Context ...................................................................................................................40

Participants and Sampling......................................................................................41

Data Collection and Instruments ............................................................................43

x

Data Analysis and Procedures ...............................................................................46

Reducing Bias and Increasing Validity..................................................................49

Bracketing ..................................................................................................49

Rich, Thick Descriptions ...........................................................................50

Interview Protocol ......................................................................................50

Member Checking ......................................................................................51

Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................52

Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................52

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................53

Introduction ............................................................................................................53

Phase I: Quantitative Results .................................................................................53

Survey Participants ....................................................................................54

SCI-2: Initial Question ...............................................................................56

Total Sense of Community Index ..............................................................57

Subscales ....................................................................................................61

Phase II: Qualitative Results ..................................................................................71

Interview Participants ................................................................................72

Qualitative Coding Cycles .........................................................................74

Outcome of Structural Coding ...................................................................74

Outcomes of Pattern Coding ......................................................................75

Phase III: Mixing the Results .................................................................................96

SCI-2 Total Index and Interview Themes ..................................................97

SCI-2 Subscales and Interview Themes ..................................................100

xi

Reinforcement of Needs ..........................................................................101

Membership .............................................................................................102

Influence ..................................................................................................103

Shared Emotional Connection .................................................................105

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................106

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................107

Introduction ..........................................................................................................107

Discussion of Findings .........................................................................................107

Research Question One ............................................................................107

Research Question Two ...........................................................................110

Research Question Three .........................................................................112

Implications..........................................................................................................114

Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................117

Limitations ...........................................................................................................118

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................120

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................122

APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................134

Survey Recruitment Email ...................................................................................134

APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................136

Student Survey .....................................................................................................136

Sense of Community Index Scale – 2 ..................................................................136

[Northwest University] 2018: Sense of Community Survey - Skelcher ..............137

APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................146

xii

APPENDIX D ..................................................................................................................148

APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................151

APPENDIX F...................................................................................................................153

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 SCI-2 Subscale Definitions ....................................................................... 46

Table 4.1 Participants’ Demographic Information ................................................... 55

Table 4.2 Participants’ Program of Study ................................................................. 56

Table 4.3 Participants’ Demographic Information ................................................... 56

Table 4.4 SCI-2 Initial Validating Question ............................................................. 57

Table 4.5 SCI-2 Individual Questions....................................................................... 58

Table 4.6 Total Index Descriptive Statistics ............................................................. 59

Table 4.7 Total Index Frequency of SCI-2 ............................................................... 60

Table 4.8 SCI-2 Subscales Descriptive Statistics ..................................................... 61

Table 4.9 Reinforcement of Needs Individual Questions ......................................... 63

Table 4.10 Reinforcement of Needs Score Frequencies ............................................. 64

Table 4.11 Reinforcement of Needs Individual Questions Descriptive Statistics ...... 65

Table 4.12 Membership Individual Questions ............................................................ 65

Table 4.13 Membership Score Frequencies ................................................................ 66

Table 4.14 Membership Questions Descriptive Statistics .......................................... 66

Table 4.15 Influence Individual Questions ................................................................. 67

Table 4.16 Influence Score Frequencies ..................................................................... 68

Table 4.17 Influence Individual Questions Descriptive Statistics .............................. 69

Table 4.18 Shared Emotional Connection Individual Questions ................................ 70

Table 4.19 Shared Emotional Connection Score Frequencies .................................... 70

xiv

Table 4.20 Shared Emotional Connection Individual Questions Descriptive Statistics

................................................................................................................... 71

Table 4.21 Interview Participants’ Demographic Information ................................... 72

Table 4. 22 Interview Participants’ SCI-2 Validating Question Responses ................ 73

Table 4. 23 Interview Participants’ SCI-2 Scale Statistics .......................................... 74

Table 4. 24 Participants Services & Aid Reference Frequency ................................... 75

Table 4. 25 Sub-Code Theme Descriptions ................................................................. 76

Table 4.26 Participants Addressing Sub-Code Themes .............................................. 77

Table 4.27 Interview Participants’ Employment Information .................................... 96

Table 4.28 Interview Participant's Total Index Frequencies ....................................... 97

Table 4.29 Interview Themes and Related SCI-2 Subscales ...................................... 98

Table 4.30 Interview Themes & Related SCI-2 Subscales ....................................... 100

Table 4.31 SCI-2 & Interview Themes Mixed Results ............................................. 101

Table 5.1 Total Index Quartiles .............................................................................. 109

Table 5.2 SCI-2 Subscale Quartiles ........................................................................ 109

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design ...................................... 44

Figure 2. Qualitative Method ................................................................................... 48

Figure 3. NVivo Code Book..................................................................................... 49

Figure 4. SCI-2 Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................................................... 62

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

COI Community of Inquiry

EDTECH Educational Technology

SCI-2 Sense of Community Index 2 Scale

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

With continued growth and expansion of online programs, more consideration is

being paid to student wellbeing and satisfaction within the online, remote environment.

However, in responding to and supporting students’ needs, what is the role of the learning

institution itself? Little research has looked at how an online student connects with the

higher learning institution in which he/she seeks a degree, especially in considering the

specific academic program, department, or institution. Is an online student missing

essential components of communal interaction and a sense of belonging if he/she is

unable to participate in on-campus events? To what extent does an online student feel that

he/she is “a part of” the higher learning institution which he/she seeks a degree from, and

how might this sense of belonging be valuable?

Through this research, the researcher aimed to fill the gap in the area mentioned

above, investigating the sense of community reported by students enrolled in an

institution that they are not physically attending. The goal of identifying and describing

this sense of community is to help institutions determine how to best serve their online

students, perhaps in consideration of establishing a larger virtual community outside the

classroom or program of study. This study may benefit both the students and higher

learning institutions. Students may communicate the experience of isolation from their

institution and also reaffirm the behaviors or features that connect online students for

online programs. The institutions in question seeking to understand the enrolled students

2

may use such research findings to best determine services and outreach activities that

exist or may be required.

Background of the Study

Astin (1999) determined that a college student’s participation within the

social/interpersonal community of a university correlates with their overall academic

achievement. It is apparent that institutional differences do matter with respect to student

choice and participation, and that connection to a university community is a defining

feature of higher education culture. Of course, in Astin’s research (1999) the subjects of

the study were the traditional brick and mortar students. While there is existing research

that addresses online students’ relationships, support, and sense of community with their

peers (Dickey, 2004; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006), instructors (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes,

2005; Rovai & Jordan, 2004), and specific colleges within a university (Young & Bruce,

2011), the online student’s sense of community to the larger institution has been largely

overlooked.

The need for further research is apparent as online students continue to report

issues of isolation (Yang, Baldwin & Snelson, 2017), paired with feelings of being

overwhelmed or not feeling fully supported in an asynchronous learning environment

(Barrett & Lally, 2000; Barbour & Plough, 2009; Hawkins, Barbour, & Graham, 2012;

Lake, 1999). Beyond academic pursuits, what else can an institution provide, through

specific programs of study or support services, to alleviate perceptions of absence being

physically represented within the on-campus community? Low academic performances

or complete withdrawals from courses may occur as students begin to struggle with these

negative pressures (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Willging

3

& Johnson 2009). Such detrimental actions can severely impact the student and may

reduce the effectiveness of schools and their administration in identifying and intervening

on behalf of these at-risk pupils.

To combat these negative conditions, a growth in organizational support and

efforts on behalf of the instructor, program, and college should continuously occur in

order to better assist, support, and retain an online population of students (Park & Choi,

2009). This study was conducted to add to the existing literature and respond to a current

gap in research regarding students’ sense of community to their higher learning

institution, in particular, to provide a more inclusive look at online students’ learning

experience. By targeting the relationship between an online student and the higher

learning institution, the results of this study describe recommendations for services,

activities, and/or interventions that can be provided to ensure the well-being, academic

success, and overall retention of online students. In essence, the focus of this research is

on the role of providing higher learning institution for students who are not physically

present on campus.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate the sense of

community that online graduate students experience in their learning institution. This

study specifically examined the experiences of graduate students enrolled in a fully

online educational technology (EDTECH) program. How did these online students see

themselves as part of the larger, higher-learning community at a Northwest University, if

they did at all? Additionally, data were analyzed in order to understand how or if the

4

university could improve their student services to help create a greater sense of

connection and belonging amongst online learners, if such efforts may be needed.

The researcher’s use of a mixed methods approach entailed the collection of

quantitative data from an online survey and qualitative data from a follow-up semi-

structured interview that described the experiences of individual students. By examining

students’ sense of community to their university, practitioners can have a more complete

understanding of the online student’s experience. Ideally, both the data collected and the

analysis conducted can be applied to other programs or institutions for the benefit of all

parties. The goal of conducting this research was to understand how online programs can

decrease isolation and improve a student’s sense of belonging. By decreasing isolation,

online programs will ultimately benefit by retaining their students – especially those new

to the online learning environment.

Research Questions

Three research questions guided this study to identify the sense of community

experienced by students enrolled in a fully online graduate program in the department of

EDTECH at a Northwest University. These questions were used to identify student

perceptions of a sense of community and to delve into the individual student experience.

Further, these questions cohesively unite to provide further insight into each individual

result. The specific research questions for this study were:

1. How do online graduate students perceive their overall sense of community with a

higher learning institution delivering their courses?

5

2. What are the student perceptions of the services and/or aid a higher learning

institution could provide to support its online graduate students’ sense of

community?

3. In what way do the themes from the semi-structured interviews inform the overall

quantitative results from the SCI-2 survey?

Significance of Study

The findings of this study contribute to the improvement of online programs by

providing insight into online students’ experiences as members of the university culture.

This study provides insights into areas in which an institution excels and also in areas of

potential improvement. Methods to improve services that contribute to a student’s sense

of community, and address feelings of frustration, anxiety, and/or isolation in online

students, may be drawn from the results of this study. By concentrating on these issues,

student retention can potentially improve, offering benefits for the university, educational

department, and, most importantly, the students.

This study offered students the opportunity to directly benefit from participation,

by providing participants with a venue to share their experiences and perspectives about

how they felt connected to their larger university system. This study may have provided a

voice to an online student population not physically present on campus. The participating

students were asked to look at the entirety of their experience within their program,

providing an overall picture of the positive and negative perceptions held. By

understanding the online students’ experiences, the department and university can

respond appropriately.

6

Lastly, the results of this study add to the existing body of literature pertaining to

online student’s sense of community and perspective of interactions, as described above.

These efforts may fill a gap in the literature regarding how online students connect with

their higher learning institution providing their education. While this study only

examined students at one, specific university, there is potential for this research to

provide a foundation for future explorations at different higher institutions. By increasing

research in the area of community, the growing field of online education can continue to

improve for incoming generations of students.

Rationale for Methodology

This study utilized a mixed methods approach, with an explanatory sequential

design. The quantitative data collection had priority and was sought first, informing the

subsequent qualitative data collection (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). An online survey

featuring student demographic questions and the Sense of Community Index 2 Scale

(SCI-2) (Chavis, Lee, & Acosta, 2008) was used for the quantitative data collection. The

survey was distributed to students in the educational technology graduate program via

their institutional email. The survey, featuring Likert-type questions, provided data

highlighting a larger, more representative overview of the online students’ sense of

community within the University. The final item of the survey prompted students to

respond as to whether they were interested in participating in the second phase, which

consisted of an in-depth interview about their experiences, conducted through web-

conferencing (Google Hangouts). This qualitative data served to explain, support, and

build upon the SCI-2 survey results (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011).

7

By using a combination of these two methods (quantitative survey and qualitative

interview) insight was provided into an online student population’s overall sense of

community while capturing the human complexity of the individual participants

themselves (Ridenour & Newman, 2008). The quantitative survey crafted a larger picture

of student connectedness to their program, while the qualitative interviews delved into

specific perspectives, needs, and experiences that can inform program improvements

and/or highlight program success. A sample size of 91 participants was obtained for the

initial quantitative survey. For the qualitative phase, 10 survey participants were selected

amongst the 17 who agreed to participate in the subsequent qualitative interviews and

provide their experiences as an online student. These 10 participants were selected based

on their demographic information (e.g. age, sex, program of study, etc.), SCI-2 survey

results (high and low total index) to allow for a varied sample, and willingness to

participate. In effect, student reporting provided direct perspectives to the possible benefit

of current and future students. These two approaches were designed to cohesively supply

increased depth to the study, to answer the research questions, and to provide insight for

future research (Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006).

To obtain access to a fully online student population, a convenience sampling

method was used in this study. Specifically, this study was conducted at a University in

the Northwestern United States that features an Educational Technology (EDTECH)

program consisting of both part-time and full-time graduate and doctoral students. While

this University offers a variety of on-campus programs, this specific program is hosted

entirely online for students both domestic and international. The program is a part of a

public institution accredited by several federal agencies, providing numerous courses and

8

degrees for a wide array of purposes and learners. The researcher, having completed the

Master’s program prior to pursuing Doctoral Candidacy in this program was well

acquainted with the programs.

Transparency of Insider Research

As the researcher was enrolled as a doctoral student at the Northwest University,

as well as a graduate assistant for three years within the department of Educational

Technology, it is important to discuss the researcher’s efforts to ensure that the insider

bias was mitigated. Insider bias, the inclusion of unconscious assumptions by the

researcher based on previous experience and knowledge, can invalidate research when

not kept in check (DeLyser, 2001). Having worked as an online teacher for several years,

the researcher’s background within the field provided insight into the dynamics of being

on both the student and administrative sides of an online program. Being a member of

both the program and also being in the field of online education offered several

challenges in this endeavor, including both maintaining objectivity despite the

researcher’s potential familiarity with the content and also creating a professional

separation with the participants themselves, as some may have previous interactions with

the researcher from their own courses. Being an insider within educational research

offered the opportunity to share common knowledge of the issue being studied – as well

as the challenges faced – and it was important that objectivity and balance were

maintained throughout the research process (Saidin & Yaacob, 2016).

Therefore, the following measures were undertaken to ensure that potential bias

was limited within the participants’ interviews: First, bracketing, which refers to

suspending one’s understandings of a topic to take fresh perspective toward an examined

9

phenomenon (Creswell, 2013), was used within the qualitative data collection and

analysis. This measure encourages the researcher to separate from any pre-conceived

knowledge of the field and to become a non-participating observer of the participant’s

experiences. In this way, the researcher will not hinder the phenomenon itself (Husserl,

1964). Additionally, a semi-structured interview approach, with pre-structured questions,

was utilized to eliminate the potential personal influence of the researcher (Mitchell &

Jolley, 2007). The researcher was further mindful of listening, and not leading, the

participant within the interview. Next, the qualitative results were continuously cross-

checked with the quantitative data to examine the alignment between the quantitative data

on participants’ sense of community perception and the interviews. Member checking

was also used to validate the findings from the interviews with the participants to ensure

that the information was being recorded and coded correctly. Lastly, the researcher made

every effort to be transparent in the methodology process and data analysis within the

final dissertation report. It was the goal of the researcher to ensure the credibility and

validity of the study.

Assumptions of the Study

This proposed study assumed that participants would answer both the survey

items and interview questions in an honest and candid manner. Speaking candidly about

experiences can be difficult for some participants, but the importance of the data

commended the need for veracity. Anonymity and security of personal information were

made clear to all participants prior to the start of the study in order to encourage honesty

in their answers. No personally identifiable information was shared with the department

or university before, during, or after the completion of this study. Participants were not

10

penalized nor benefitted academically nor financially for their participation in this study.

Lastly, interviews were conducted on a one-on-one basis to encourage trust between the

researcher and participants and to, again, encourage transparency through those

interviewed.

Chapter Summary

The first chapter of this dissertation describes the study while offering context as

to why this research was significant to the field of online education and program

development. Additionally, this chapter provides an outline of the research approach,

defines the purpose of the study and the research questions, and summarizes the

researcher’s conduct and alignment with professional standards. The second chapter of

this dissertation offers a more detailed review of the current literature pertaining to online

student sense of community and how relevant prior research influenced the development

of this study.

11

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Understanding of current, existing systems and practices of online education

varies for different stakeholders. Diverse and dexterous approaches, models, and modes

of delivery make online education difficult to conform to one “correct” example (Allen &

Seaman, 2013). Nevertheless, students often select this mode of learning as a preferred or

as an efficacious educational environment, despite any ambiguity in definition, for a

variety of reasons (Allen & Seaman, 2015). Online education’s affordance on flexibility,

ability to provide a diverse array of programs and courses, possibilities for remote

locations, and an overall impression of a positive, complementary learning experience are

only a few potential considerations for approaching the online learning mode and such

courses (Hannay & Newvine, 2006). No matter the reason, the continued growth of

online education indicates that online programs are here to stay. The popularity and

variance of online learning present an excellent opportunity for researchers to embark on

new studies to shape and improve the field.

Online learning’s unique, often physically remote or isolated setting (both

geographically and temporally), provides ample space for the study of social behaviors,

and the potential influence these behaviors may have on student achievement (Harasim,

2000; Richardson & Swan, 2003). This view represents a well-addressed topic that

continues to and needs to, derive much attention. Research has investigated questions

surrounding best practices, learning theories, and student behavior, and studies and

12

recommendations are being established within this digital environment for such topics as

instructional design (Ouzts, 2006; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006), instructor best practices

(Nash, 2005), student interventions (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003; Tung, 2012), etc.

However, much like the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom, theories and

recommendations for education are not always one-size-fits-all.

This section reviews the literature on identifying and evaluating aspects of sense

of community – defined here as the proximity perceived by students to their learning

environment, including a sense of belonging, ownership, and interpersonal relationships

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The literature review includes impressions of student

connections to their peers, instructors, subject learning content, and the overall sense of

learning taking place during their coursework. The review of the literature begins with

foundational measurements of interactions and move through various elements of online

courses, such as design, collaboration, and elements of teaching in the online

environment. Additionally, consideration of more summative elements of experienced

learning, with respect to student demographics, competency, and overall satisfaction are

included. In this effort, a more detailed picture of the potential and practices of online

learning is established. Concluding observations provide a portrait of the current state of

research regarding students’ perceptions and experiences of sense of community in the

online environment.

Theoretical Foundations

Online education presents an environment that is unique, with clear delineations

in its practice and systems in comparison, to traditional, physical learning environments

(Harasim, 2000). It may be tempting to assume that because of the remote, often

13

asynchronous, nature of the participants that learning online can be an entirely individual

pursuit. Certainly, many students may choose this learning environment to enhance their

individual experience with regards to pace, relationship with classmates, and the nature of

their tasks. However, when clearly considering the necessary supports, including

instructors, course designers, technical support, and administrative functions, etc. for the

learner, it would be impossible to consider online learning to be a wholly individual

pursuit.

As such, the impact of the social nature of learning, even in the online

environment, is relevant in considering student experiences. Social constructivism, as

described by Vygotsky (1978), provides clear parameters regarding the integration of

learners into a community of practice. While students who choose the online learning

environment may have a different, perhaps extensive and independent level of agency

within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), there is a substantial level

of development needed from the educational system and its social agents. No student can

learn within a bubble of seclusion or ignorance. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge

that the separations for an online student in time and space should not constitute a strict,

defined border between him or her and the learning environment. The bubble must be one

that students can phase through when needed, or when needing to be reached.

Determining the extent and efforts undertaken in connecting students into their

social learning environment can be encompassed in the study of interactions. Interaction

can be defined as “an event that takes place between a learner and learners’ environment

and its purpose is to respond to the learner in a way intended to change his or her

behavior toward an educational goal” (Wagner, 1994, p. 9). Interaction in an online

14

course can occur and appear in many different forms, with many different stakeholders.

In one sense, interaction is the only constant in educational design, regardless of any

institution, in-person or remote. In online or distance learning, however, routes or means

of interaction cannot be taken for granted, but instead must be held as a core component

of education. Moore (1989), in a foundational editorial, explored three specific types of

interaction that occur within distance learning programs – three interactions that have

also been adapted and favored in research in online education: learner to instructor,

learner to learner, and learner to content.

What makes these three interactions important? Anderson (2008) argued that

should even one of these three interactions occur at high levels, students will likely have

a more satisfying learning experience overall. Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, and

Tamim (2011) found that interactions across all three categories positively affect student

learning at a significant level. Interaction, in support of the student’s social learning

environment and sense of community, creates an essential foundation for literature

regarding student perceptions of belonging and ownership in their online learning

program.

Deconstructing Sense of Community

From the earliest formations of online education’s dynamic and exponential

spread, commencing in the last decades of the 20th century, a central question has been

whether or not this new digital environment would be able to replicate the brick and

mortar classrooms and institutions that preceded it for centuries. Some elements of the

new medium’s transferability were straightforward – issues of technological capabilities,

content adaptation, and instructor availability. Once these items were addressed, the

15

lingering question concerns student engagement and ownership of their learning. Simply

put, do students completing online coursework feel that they are connected to that

community, at least in the sense they might for traditional, physical, and synchronous

learning? It is evident that there is a gap in available literature pertaining to online

students’ sense of community with respect to the higher learning institution. However,

this section will review the studies that do tie sense of community to the online, higher

education setting.

Defining Sense of Community

It is important to clarify how a student might perceive their sense of community.

This term originates in the work of McMillan and Chavis (1986), who define a sense of

community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter

to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met

through their commitment to be together” (p. 9). The authors further describe four

specific criteria for the theory of sense of community, including membership, influence,

integration and fulfillment of need, and a shared emotional connection. The first criteria,

membership, is defined as “the feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal

relatedness” (p. 9). Next, influence includes “a sense of mattering, of making a difference

to a group and of the group mattering to its members” (p. 9). The integration and

fulfillment of needs is “the feeling that members' needs will be met by the resources

received through their membership in the group” (p. 9). Lastly, a shared emotional

connection is “the commitment and belief that members have shared and will share

history, common places, time together, and similar experiences” (p. 9).

16

In reviewing the four criteria presented by McMillan and Chavis (1986), it should

be noted that none of the four perspectives require a face-to-face interaction and,

therefore, all four could conceivably be applied directly to the online learning

environment. The extent to which a community can reach – and if an individual can feel

connected to others not tied to their time and place – is a central question in this

investigation. Shackelford and Maxwell (2012) highlighted that building a sense of

community within a course calls for a student-centered approach with activities that allow

the learners to be active and involved with the process of learning.

Engagement and Collaboration

Creating structures that support student engagement within the online

environment calls for a variety of tools and lessons, including, but not limited to:

discussion boards, projects, peer review, and the sharing of resources (Shackelford &

Maxwell, 2012). Education does not provide a one-size-fits-all approach for all students,

therefore, instructors and designers of online courses must take special care to include a

variety of assignments and assessments that will pull students into connections with each

other and with the learning process. When a student can leave their shelter of insecurity

or inactivity for the emboldened purpose of bridging gaps and knowledge, crossing a

communication divide, productive learning can occur.

Establishing an active learning environment in which students are enthusiastically

participating will help improve the likelihood that students will develop a sense of

community (Dawson, 2006). Enthusiastic participation is developed, when not already

intrinsic to the learner, by the pace, process, and perspectives offered by the instructor

(Ouzts, 2006). Ouzts (2006) argued that much of this support for student engagement,

17

which is derived from the practices and design organized by the instructor, is developed

online from the same pedagogy that creates this environment in the traditional classroom.

Naturally, the methods of this practice and design are carried over with modification to fit

the newer medium. The homosocial bonds created through communication, teamwork,

and collective efforts have a crossover between physical and online classrooms, but not in

all of the more familiar impressions. Learner collaboration is an important factor of both

knowledge construction and social presence, so it should, therefore, be promoted within

the classroom, despite any potential adoption or adaption issues (Garrison, 2007).

The online learning environment is unique for students seeking engagement due

to their separation in time and space (Rovai, 2002c). Student engagement online

improves by investing within the systems of community and the interrelationships

between students and other courses (Young & Bruce, 2011). This conclusion is echoed in

other related research of the outcomes in building a sense of community and satisfaction

(Drouin, 2008; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Swan, 2002). However, does a

prevailing sense of community translate to a sense of perceived learning or more concrete

measures of success in a course?

Achievement and Perceived Learning

It may be accepted that an increase in a sense of community can lead to an

improvement, for many learners, in satisfaction with the course (Shackelford & Maxwell,

2012). With respect to the perception of achievement, however, the measurement of

either context can be more difficult to determine. What evidence exists that a sense of

community can produce greater achievement? To answer this question, it is important to

18

clarify the nature of achievement. Is success measured by higher summative grades, by

retention rates, or by a learner’s feelings of growth and content knowledge?

It is difficult to prove that greater engagement with the community can directly

produce higher scores, but research shows that the inverse is true, as students who are

less active and engage with peers and instructors at the minimum tend to fail more

frequently (Davies & Graff, 2005). If expectations exist that interactions or behavior in a

course will be tied to grades, there is some credence to the claim by Young and Bruce

(2011) that “students who feel connected with peers and also engaged in course activities,

in turn feel confident in their achievement and expectation of higher grades” (p. 225).

Expectations for learning programs, too, may be affected by student interactions, as Liu,

Magjuka, Bonk, and Lee (2007) found that active participation within online learning

communities can combat retention, which is a major issue in online, distance learning

programs (Allen & Seaman, 2015).

However, basing perceptions of achievement purely off of grades is inconclusive.

Whereas Derrick and Wighting (2015) determined that there is indeed a positive

correlation between a college learner’s summative grades and perceptions of the sense of

community, an observation that also holds true at the high school level (Wighting, Nisbet,

& Spaulding, 2009). Rovai (2002b) pointed out that grades are not a functional substitute

for the measurement of learning. Grades, as the primary indicator of a student in need of

retention, are not as successful in measuring student attitudes. Furthermore, student

retention isn’t necessarily tied to sense of community (Drouin, 2008).

It must be said, however, that perceptions of learning – another measure of

achievement – are not necessarily tied to grades either. Indeed, this is an area wherein a

19

sense of community reaffirms important connection students may make with their

experiences and achievement. Rovai (2002b), in a study spanning over 25 different

graduate courses, concluded that there is indeed a correlation between cognitive,

perceived learning and the sense of community experienced by the learner. While the

nature of the specific factors that – common across all studied courses – enforced this

connection cannot be pinpointed, there is research that supports elements from that study.

For example, Shea, Li, and Pickett (2006) identified the success of the instructor as a key

factor, especially in connecting community to instruction, design, and course

organization. Top (2012) found, using a perceived learning scale, that the use of blogging

within online undergraduate courses not only established a sense of community within

the students but was also a predictor for perceived learning. If community is essential to

the optimal learning environment, as described above by Vygotsky (1978) and other

sources, it must be seen as an important subject of study here. In short, the goal of

identifying student success with respect to attitudes and feelings may lend themselves

more to the deliberate study of sense of community.

Promoting Sense of Community

Building and strengthening one’s sense of community is important in ensuring

that students learn to work collaboratively with one another in the educational

environment. Cheng (2004) described a study in which the sense of community perceived

by undergraduate, on-campus students directly reflects or influences their well-being,

attitudes of education, and feelings of self-efficacy. Cheng advises that the ideal

university administration adopts practices and activities that promote a sense of

community for their students, including these following descriptions:

20

(1) [The university] has an open environment where free expressions are

encouraged and individuality is accepted and respected, (2) engages faculty and

students in teaching and learning, (3) provides an active social and learning

environment in residence halls, (4) fosters positive relationships among ethnic and

cultural groups through programs and student activities, (5) celebrates traditions

and heritage of the institution, and (6) provides assistance to students when they

feel lonely or depressed. (Cheng, 2004, p. 216)

Cheng’s description highlights many of the features that are concomitant with the on-

campus experience. In fact, many studies have been conducted on campus looking at the

sense of community among the student population. In one study, the size of the university

was shown to have a significant impact on student sense of community with the smaller

schools having a more positive impact on the population (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996).

Additionally, participation in school-related associations, such as Greek membership,

clubs, and/or working on campus (Jacobs & Archie, 2008) positively influences a

student’s sense of community. Even the effect of nature has been studied, with the

participation in outdoor activity trips showing to have had a significant positive impact

on the participating students (Breunig, O'Connell, Todd, Anderson, & Young, 2010).

From residence hall activities to professional counselors, the traditional university setting

has many elements specifically in place for student well-being and feelings of

connection. With so many opportunities to connect on-campus, it is now imperative to

ask: how then can these features be translated for online learners?

21

Online Sense of Community

Where, when, and how do students connect with one another when there are

geographic and temporal distances between them in their online coursework? Research in

the field of online education, and specifically the social and psychological welfare of

students, continues to develop. We are now starting to recognize the importance of a

learning community within the online environment, as well as one’s sense of belonging

within that environment (Ouzts, 2006; Rovai, 2002b; Shea, 2006). By better

conceptualizing how community, collaboration, and engagement work within this online

setting, we as educators can better understand how to serve the growing number of

students enrolled in online programs.

Having defined a sense of community and further explained its importance within

online learning, it is also important to try to understand the individual learner’s

experiences within the online classroom. How do individual students perceive themselves

as a learner within a virtual environment? And how does this student understanding of

their virtual presence impact the potential for community establishment and growth? By

understanding common experiences pertaining to individual students, one can hope to

further understand how best to apply specific factors that will impact community to meet

the diverse needs of a learning cohort.

Social Presence

Social presence is an important factor in student sense of community (Rovai,

2002c), for social presence is the ability for a learner to appear “real” within an online

environment (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999). When students feel that they hold a

presence with their peers and are “seen” within the learning environment, the likelihood

22

of those relationships growing into a community increases (Swan & Shih, 2005).

Additionally, a student can combat feelings of isolation by establishing social presence

within an online community (Drouin & Vartanian, 2010; Lake, 1999). Having a presence

in a group may signal how much attention or interaction a student wishes to communicate

to the group at-large (Drouin, 2008). So, how does an instructor encourage their students

to share more about themselves? Stepich and Ertmer (2003) recommended the, now

commonplace, use of introductory posts with feedback as one way to initiate this

communication. Asking students to share information about their background and

interests allow them to establish connections with one and other and create a social

presence that can be drawn upon throughout the course. Expanding on these connections

will cement concepts of the learners for each other, especially in making small talk or

softening discussion board posts. As social presence increases, the likelihood of learner

teamwork also grows.

In a comprehensive overlook of how social presence is defined and cited,

Lowenthal and Snelson (2017) determine that the conception of social presence has

changed since its inception as a component of community of inquiry studies into a highly

promoted area of perceptions of students. In the online arena, developing or supporting

students’ social presence with respect to their teachers, peers, and coursework is a near-

self-evident component of appropriate course design (Swan & Shih, 2005). Along a

spectrum of potential interpretations of social presence, some disparity exists between

concept such as “real” with respect to student perceptions of the interactions that define

their coursework. It must be made clear, in this proposed study, that social presence for

online students is conceived as the replication or at least approximation of the brick and

23

mortar experience in the classroom. This delineation is a result of the continued

interpretation regarding the importance of centering online students within their

coursework and remote interactions (Whiteside, Dikkers, & Swan, 2017). It should be

highlighted that collaborating within an online setting can be challenging for students and

instructors alike. Issues of timing, communication, and workspace can create challenges

for those trying to work with one and other (Cleveland-Innes, Garrison & Kinsel, 2007).

Therefore, establishing a social presence allows for students to better understand one and

other and how to communicate through these issues.

Interaction

As social presence is established, and students begin to understand who they are

within the virtual environment, students are likely to begin communicating and further

interacting with other stakeholders in the class. Observations of student interactions can

allow an instructor a greater sense of how students are relating to the virtual environment.

Moore (1989) presented three different types of interactions that can add to the success of

a distance learning program. These interactions include learner to learner, learner to

instructor, and learner to content. Each of these interactions has been shown to contribute

to a student’s motivation within the course (Moore, 1989; Serwatka 2003; Smart &

Cappel, 2006), as well as their enjoyment (Bernard et al., 2009; Rhode, 2009; Roblyer &

Ekhaml, 2000; Rovai & Barnum, 2003; Sher, 2009; Swan, 2002). Additionally, these

interactions have been shown to promote positive academic performance (Murray, Pérez,

Geist, & Hedrick, 2013; Zimmerman, 2012). With so many positive outcomes, it is

important that today’s instructors and course designers leverage interactions within the

online classroom in order to promote an optimal, satisfying learning environment.

24

Interactions can be promoted within the classroom in several different ways.

Learner to content involves the use of course materials to construct, understand, and

apply knowledge on a specific topic. The more interaction that occurs with the provided

topic, the better students perform academically within the targeted area (Zimmerman,

2012). Next, learner to instructor interactions have been shown to promote student

connectedness within a course (Shea, 2006; Shea & Pickett, 2006), as well as relate to the

overall satisfaction of the student (Bernard et al., 2009; Rovai & Barnum, 2003). It is

important that the instructor not only be online and active within the course regularly

(Beaudoin, 2002) but that they present themselves as the point of contact for the course

(Nash, 2005). Truly, the instructor directs and encourages interaction throughout the

course and assists students with areas of confusion and frustration (Easton, 2003), making

them, perhaps, the most important interaction of all. Lastly, learner to learner interactions

can be increased through the design of the course, which should include purposeful,

reciprocal opportunities for students to communicate through discussions or collaborative

work, under and sometimes encouraged through the oversight of the instructor (Sher,

2009).

Interestingly, while interactions within the classroom between learners are an

important part of both establishing a learning community and reducing feelings of

isolation (Drouin & Vartanian, 2010), it should be noted that some students may simply

not want these connections. Drouin (2008) found that while some students felt that they

needed social connections and interactions within the online classroom, others wanted to

be left alone. These students did not feel that social interaction was a necessity in their

online learning experience, nor for the good of the course. Additionally, Gray (2004)

25

found that allowing students to remain in the community without demanding active

participation at rigorous levels, or view content without participating, increased the

likelihood of them joining a learning community later. The ability to watch and learn

increased confidence and comfort in these individuals.

However, while some students may report that they have not felt that they needed

learner to learner interactions, instructor presence was still an important key factor to

success within the course. As a facilitator of the course, students need a leader to turn to

with questions or concerns (Nash, 2005). This presents an underlying issue with

community: individual stakeholders have varying needs from one and other. While this

situational precept is sometimes challenging, an instructor’s understanding of their

individual students is key to knowing what levels of interaction and community are (or

are not) needed. With this in mind, it is beneficial to have structures in place supporting

all types of interactions, even if some students report a less individual need for one or

another.

Transactional Distance

In addition to interacting, an overall understanding of how students perceive the

distance between themselves in an online course can assist in the understanding of how to

promote interaction and build community – both important aspects of a learner’s sense of

connection. Transactional perceived distance can be defined as the space between an

individual learner both physically and psychologically (Moore, 1993). Communication,

participation, and structure within an online course can improve a learner’s sense of

community and therefore decrease the transactional distance that they perceive. A

common method to increase a community’s communication and participation within an

26

online course is the use of discussion boards (Rovai, 2002c). Shin (2003) further explored

how the use of discussion boards built upon the concept of transactional distance. The

author described transactional presence, or the interpersonal connectedness between

stakeholders in a class and the “belief or feeling that a reciprocal relationship exists

between two or more parties, involving an individual’s subjective judgment upon the

extent of the engagement in relationships with others” (p. 71). Shin felt that this

reciprocal relationship could be established within the give and take nature of classroom

discussions and that building this relationship would ultimately improve student

connectedness within a course.

While discussion boards are an important tool used to reduce transactional

distance, and increase transactional presence (Rovai, 2002c, Shin, 2003), if a classroom

community is not first established within the online course, students can be at risk for

disengaging from discussion boards and dropping the entire class (Tinto, 1993).

Therefore, adding discussions to a course without other considerations for developing

community will likely not resolve a student’s feelings of isolation. Instructors need to

play an active role in facilitating these discussions for the learners, in order to build this

sense of community (Shea, 2006; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). Further, by providing

engaging questions for discussion, an instructor is encouraging their class to demonstrate

their understanding of the content’s meaning. These learning experiences promote

cognitive presence and deeper learning (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Overall,

when using a discussion in class, it is important that instructors model appropriate

participation and communication, while also including clear expectations for contribution

and assessment in order to further promote interaction and social presence.

27

Community of Inquiry

Another conceptual understanding of transactional distance is reflected in the

work of Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) regarding the Community of Inquiry

(COI). This model was developed specifically with computer-mediated education (online

learning) as a focus, leveraging a student’s online presence in order to meet student

needs. Much like Moore’s (1989) theories of student interaction, the COI looks at social

factors that can inform practice within the field. The authors established three core factors

that contribute to a COI, including social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching

presence. How these relate to a student’s sense of community is further discussed.

First, social presence measures the ability of a learner to identify with a

community and project their personal characteristics in order to establish interpersonal

relationships within the virtual environment. Social presence can be encouraged through

activities that promote collaboration among students, which in turn, promote student

expression and build a student’s sense of community within the course (Garrison, 2007).

Collaborative activities have the potential to establish a common purpose for students

within the course and encourage further inquiry, increasing their social presence in the

process.

The second factor that contributes to COI is the cognitive presence or the extent at

which meaning is constructed from sustained discourse and reflection within the

community. Through cognitive presence, students move between four categories of

learning, including: the triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution

(Garrison, 2007). This presence relates most to a student’s perceived learning, which can

influence their sense of community (Rovai, 2002b; Top, 2012). In contrast to the face-to-

28

face environment, where information is delivered directly in real-time, the online setting

requires an increased responsibility of the learner to obtain information for themselves

(Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2004).

The last factor, teaching presence, includes the organization, structure, and

direction of both social and cognitive presences with the purpose of creating rigorous and

impactful learning outcomes for students. This last area reflects two dimensions: course

design or organizational structures employed by the instructor, and also the invested

involvement of the instructor during the course of their interactions with learners

(Arbaugh et al., 2008). Interestingly, Akyol and Garrison (2008) found that the teaching

presence was the largest contributing factor to a student’s sense of community and

learning, highlighting the importance of leadership in establishing student comfort in the

online environment.

Each of the three features of COI may overlap as some components of online

coursework – such as discussion boards or collaborative projects – engage learners in

multiple presences (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999). The additional support role of

social presence within the COI is to enhance cognitive presence and proximity to learning

for the improvement of the student investment. The COI and other models of sense of

community in action are essential in this era of online learning and instruction, driving, as

they do, investigations into student behavior and understanding, as well as how designers

and instructors can develop perceptions of meaningful, present activity in their courses.

While the COI is a lens for interactions within the classroom, many of these lessons could

potentially be applied to the larger university setting in examination of how activities are

29

organized, information is obtained, and leadership is established and communicated for

the online student.

Evaluating a Sense of Community

As the positive outcomes and importance of building a learner’s sense of

community are further understood, how does an instructor or institution begin to build

and evaluate this feeling within their students? The work of McMillan and Chavis’

(1986) has inspired the development of two well-researched and validated tools used to

measure a sense of community. First, the Classroom Community Scale, which has been

developed to look specifically at the sense of community of students within an online

classroom. Second, the Sense of Community Index Scale – 2 (SCI-2), takes a larger look

at community within any group or faction. These tools can assist researchers in

leveraging classroom data and student perceptions towards building a more cohesive and

meaningful learning experience – at a distance.

Online Classroom Community Scale

Rovai (2002a) developed the Classroom Community Scale to measure an online

student’s sense of community within their learning environment. This instrument was

initially used by Rovai within a field of 375 graduate students who were enrolled in 28

different Blackboard-based online courses. The Classroom Community Scale was

initially developed based on prior literature into classroom community and was found to

have high content and construct validities. The specific items within the tool were

reviewed by three psychology professors, all of whom found the questions to be “totally

relevant to sense of community in a classroom setting” (Rovai, 2002a, p. 204). Reliability

of this tool was measured and produced favorable results. Within this study, Rovai

30

(2002a), was able to infer that classroom community is sensitive to both instructor

delivery and the overall design of a course – calling for special attention from both

instructors and designers in how they approach online learning.

With a now-established high validity and reliability, the Classroom Community

Scale has been used in further research into the sense of community in online courses. In

a later study, Rovai (2002b) found that a student’s sense of community also impacts

perceived cognitive learning – with students who felt more connected feeling that they, in

turn, learned more from the course. Further, Dawson (2006) used the sense of community

scale to evaluate how communication impacts community. Dawson found a significant

relationship between the student frequency of communication and their sense of

community. This communication occurred between both peers and also between students

and staff. Indeed, for additional perceived learner outcomes we are now able to better

measure and understand how one’s sense of community influences these perceptions

through the use of such scales.

The Sense of Community Index Scale - 2

Chavis, Lee, and Acosta (2008) developed a tool used to measure community

within a given group, if not specifically within a classroom. This tool, the SCI-2,

highlights and follows the four elements of community identified by McMillan and

Chavis (1986): membership, influence, meeting needs, and a shared emotional

connection. This instrument has been updated from its earlier predecessor, the Sense of

Community Index Scale - 1, to improve validity across different cultures and contexts.

This allows for the measurement of a variety of participants with distinct demographic,

background, and program information. Chavis, Lee & Acosta (2008) have reported a

31

strong reliability within the larger sense of community analysis, as well as good

reliability within the reported subscales:

The SCI-2 was revised and used within a larger survey of 1800 people. The

analysis of the SCI-2 showed that it is a very reliable measure (coefficient alpha=

.94). The subscales also proved to be reliable with coefficient alpha scores of .79

to .86. (p. 2)

While Rovai’s (2002a) Classroom Community Scale is helpful in measuring online

classroom sense of community, the SCI-2 might be considered for studies that include a

larger population from two or more programs. Another possibility is to consider or

research outside the classroom and even into larger structures, such as specific colleges

(e.g. College of Education) or institutions themselves (e.g. University of Wyoming). As

students are engaged in learning, the community they may or may not identify with is

also revealed to have levels and layers.

Synthesizing Sense of Community

In this century, student-centered classrooms and course design, as well as a

demand for responsive, consumer-based programs, have evolved through a major

pedagogical shift. Therein, the twin goals of student learning and student satisfaction are

a course facilitator’s paramount goals. McMillan and Chavis (1986) clarifies how

experiences in a community express perceptions of learning. Sense of community is a

matter of perception, and, just as with sensory experiences and attitudes, this perception

is individually-constructed and variable. Providing the experiences that engage learners

in their coursework, and the assignments and assessments that encourage student

32

ownership of their efforts, are the processes and practices that will develop a learner’s

sense of community (Dawson, 2006; Ouzts, 2006; Rovai, 2002c).

Components in building a sense of community are also examined in this chapter.

Learner collaboration builds on student engagement and acknowledgment of learning

partners (Garrison, 2007). Student engagement with each other and design elements of

courses are improved by communal interaction (Young & Bruce, 2011). Satisfaction

within a course, a learner’s sense of value and effective delivery of learning materials,

may be directly correlated to the learner’s sense of place within the online course

(Drouin, 2008; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Swan, 2002). Students’ physical and

temporal separation from each other presents a challenge, but the tasks and purposes of

student interactions, if appropriately engaging or considerate of needs are more powerful

than the time or place of those interactions (Rovai, 2002c).

Students’ perceptions of learning are improved by a sense of community (Rovai,

2002b). Models that measure sense of community – such as the Classroom Community

Scale (Rovai, 2002a) and the Sense of Community Index Scale – 2 (Chavis, Lee &

Acosta, 2008) – suggest that frequency and depth of communication between instructors

and students, as well as the nature of interactions between participants, impact

community. These observations effectively connect to theories of interaction, as proposed

by Moore (1989) and Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999). Indeed, further study into

these theories of distance and social presence for tomorrow’s learners should be a major

focus for future research.

For example, concepts of perceived learning vary by population. Females, more

so than males, report greater perceptions of a sense of community and learning gained

33

from interaction in online courses (Rovai 2002b; Shea, 2006). The elements that create

this broad impression are not clearly defined but may be typical of development into

adult learning (Rovai 2002b). Identifying how a sense of community can be more

powerfully felt by male learners may help with persistent issues of retention (Liu et al.,

2007), and also improve engagement with self-advocacy (Davies & Graff, 2005, Drouin

& Vartanian, 2010; Lake, 1999).

Additionally, researcher conceptions of what creates a sense of community will

continue to evolve. Some online course mainstays – such as discussion boards and blog

writing – are shown to improve perceptions of learning and proximity in the community

(Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012; Stepich & Ertmer, 2003; Top, 2012). New elements of

course design are also available. Shen, Nuankhieo, Huang, Amelung, & Lafey (2008)

described the use of Social Network Analysis software to augment data analytics with

respect to interactions. Perceptions of community within discussions and other forms of

direct contact can be assessed with this tool to pinpoint the nexus individuals in

communication – to see which learners or instructors are proving the most beneficial in

prompting others to engage in discussion, proving the material some passive students

need to become involved (Gray, 2004). As tools and course technology evolve, the ability

to measure a sense of community will develop and diversify.

Overall, establishing a community within a virtual environment should be

celebrated as being an achievement in and of itself. Distance education, and particularly

online education, has brought together a community of learners worldwide who are able

to construct knowledge while sharing unique ideas and perspectives. We are now able to

learn together like never before. The study of community, and one’s sense of community,

34

is important in helping online learning continue to grow and reach all interested learners.

By establishing theory pertaining to the psychological elements of online education, we

are recognizing that these students have a social presence within their virtual space. It is

important that research in this area continues to grow in order for online education to be

seen as a less isolating and more normative option. Only by understanding these online

learners will we be able to better assist them, and those who come after them, in their

goals of learning.

Chapter Summary

This chapter reviews pertinent literature with respect to the influence of students’

perceptions and sense of presence within online courses and programs, as well as the

history and tools used to identify and study students’ sense of presence. Significantly,

student perceptions of their online, social, educational presence within their courses can

be directly linked to feelings of competence and wellbeing within an online course (Gray,

2004; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012), can help predict student retention and endurance

through an online program (Liu et al., 2007; Yang, Baldwin & Snelson, 2017), and has a

link toward improving students’ academic pursuits (Young & Bruce, 2011). Research

identifying student interactions as investing in a sense of community (Moore, 1989;

Rovai 2002b; Shea, 2006) specifically highlights interactions between the students and

their instructors, their peers, and course design elements. This study sought to add to the

existing body of literature in providing insights into the role of a higher learning

institution in its students’ sense of community. The next chapter describes the mixed

methods methodology and offers detail into the procedures for data collection and data

analysis.

35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Clearly, the need for further study with respect to student sense of community,

student interactions, and student perceptions of the online learning environment is

paramount. In the near future, as more students from around the world enroll in online,

distance programs through higher learning institutions, it will be essential for both

students and the higher institutions to consider the potential effects and incentives offered

to online students through enrollment. It is possible that concerns of retention,

dissatisfaction, and reduced participation may develop if issues identified in student

actualization of their social presence, or the nature of interactions between students and

their learning environment, are not studied fully. Conversely, there should be support and

recognition if a higher education institution is successfully embedding its students into its

culture, improving student perceptions, activity, and success. This study engages with

this need in its conduct and discussion.

The purpose of the study, research questions, the research design, data collection,

and data analysis were discussed previously. This chapter further describes the

methodology used in the study. The instrument of quantitative data collection, the Sense

of Community Index (SCI-2) scale (Chavis, Lee, & Acosta, 2008), is reviewed in greater

detail, and the implementation of the subsequent qualitative interview is addressed. The

rationale for a mixed methods approach is provided and explained. Lastly, this chapter

discusses potential ethical considerations and limitations in the study.

36

Statement of the Problem

There is a need for further research pertaining to online students – those who are

removed from the physical campus – with respect to their sense of community to the

higher learning institution providing their education. Though online students are not

physically represented on campus, they are still recognized as a part of the larger student

population. Because of this, it is important that these students receive services and

opportunities similar to those of their brick and mortar counterparts. As explained in the

literature review, feelings of connectedness and inclusion can impact academic (Young &

Bruce, 2011) and emotional (Gray, 2004; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012) wellbeing. As

student populations in the online environment continue to grow, it is even more important

that we understand how these students connect to their educational experience as a whole.

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore the sense of community

of online graduate students, enrolled in the educational technology (EDTECH)

department, and the higher learning institution providing their courses. This study

included a survey of student perspectives to better understand their level of a sense of

community and belonging within the university community which they are supposed to

be part of. Follow-up interviews with selected students were then conducted with a goal

of understanding how a providing institution can improve its services for current and

future online students to improve retention, create a sense of community, and to improve

overall online student morale.

Research Questions

Three research foci were examined in this study. First, to establish an

understanding of a student’s sense of community within his or her higher learning

37

institution. Second, to further identify what specific factors within that institution

influence a student’s sense of community the most. Third, to determine how the

integration of the two collected data sets could further support this overall study. A mixed

methods approach was chosen to allow for a quantitative representation of the

participants’ feeling of community followed by qualitative interviews to understand,

more deeply, the specific factors that influence a participant’s response. For quantitative

data, a Sense of Community Index – 2 Scale (SCI-2) was used, allowing for this research

question to be answered in a timely, efficient manner, while still providing a thorough

examination of the students’ level of connection. The first research question was stated

as:

1. How do online graduate students perceive their overall sense of community with a

higher learning institution delivering their courses?

The quantitative results of this study were supported and better understood with

the use of interviews that examined individual student perceptions and experiences within

the university. Data collected provided insight into the initial SCI-2 survey results.

Interview questions focused on potential areas of both positive impacts or areas of

improvement within the current program at the university. This information may better

guide other universities in how they approach their online students. These interviews

were conducted after the initial survey had been completed. All interviews were then

coded for related themes and in an attempt to answer the second research question:

2. What are the student perceptions of the services and/or aid a higher learning

institution could provide to support its online graduate students’ sense of

community?

38

The final phase of the study included the integration of the two data sets in an effort

to find further meaning and connection between the two research approaches, and to

enhance the overall findings (Creswell, 2009). Creswell and Plano Clark (2011)

highlighted that the use of an additional mixed methods question is important as it

provides a rationale for the use of both quantitative and qualitative data in one study and

brings the data together to provide further support and meaning to the overall study.

Therefore, a methods-focused question was established in order to identify whether or not

the themes collected from the semi-structured qualitative interviews related to the results

of the SCI-2. Specifically, did the themes found within the interviews relate to the

subscales of the SCI-2 survey? This analysis allowed for the mixing of the two

aforementioned data sets and helped further explain the results of this study, as described

in the third research question:

3. In what way do the themes from the semi-structured interviews inform the overall

quantitative results from the SCI-2 survey?

Research Methodology

Different approaches have been employed in studying a student’s engagement,

learning, and sense of community, including using specific educational tools, such as

discussion boards (Yang, Richardson, French, & Lehman, 2011), Twitter (Lord &

Lomicka, 2014), or virtual worlds (Wu, Richards, & Saw, 2014), to name a few. Because

there is no single, standard model of delivering online education that can be analyzed, the

researcher elected, for this study, to directly approach the students in collecting their

sense of community, experience, and feelings. To conduct this investigation, the

methodology utilized an explanatory sequential design method in which quantitative data

39

had priority and was sought first, informing the latter qualitative collection (Creswell &

Plano-Clark, 2011). Quantitative results provided an overview of the participants’ sense

of community within their online programs, and allowed for the collection of a larger,

more representative sample. Qualitative interviews then drew upon these quantitative

results and were used to explain and build upon any earlier outcomes (Creswell & Plano-

Clark, 2011). The combination of these two methods was necessary to provide both a

representation of the participants while also capturing the human complexity of the

participants themselves (Goertzel & Fashing, 1981).

Choosing a mixed methods approach is often guided by how one can best address

the study’s research questions (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). While qualitative and

quantitative methods are often employed independently, the combination of the two in

mixed methods research could be considered as the “third major research approach”

(Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007, p. 115). However, the use of mixed methods

research can create many frustrations due to ambiguity, as there are no definitive rules on

how to approach this methodology. For example, researchers do not have an agreed upon

definition of mixed methods research (Morse & Niehaus, 2009). Perhaps this is due to a

lack of true mixed methods studies within the field. While mixed methods are often used

initially as part of the research design, researchers often choose to report their findings

separately – resulting in separate manuscripts for the quantitative and qualitative

approaches (Archibald, Radil, Zhang, & Hanson, 2015). This can be a benefit for

researchers as they gain two papers out of one study, albeit the published pieces are less

precise to the actual conduct of the research and the mixed methods body of literature.

40

Despite these shortcomings, leading researchers have begun to define approaches,

establish best practices, and create relevant definitions to be used by future, novice

researchers. It is recognized that practitioners new to mixed methods benefit from using

established mixed methods approaches, as such approaches can “serve as road maps for

data collection, analysis, integration, and interpretation” (Archibald et al., 2015, p. 20).

Indeed, this researcher employed these road maps in the study in order to provide

transparency about the use of mixed methods in its research design and to lead to greater

legitimacy for the study as a whole (Guest, 2012).

Context

This study was conducted in the EDTECH department of a public university in

the northwestern United States. While the university itself is an established brick and

mortar institution offering courses on-campus, it does host online coursework, including

the completely online department of EDTECH. This department holds a variety of

programs that offer both certificates and full degrees. At the time of this study, the

EDTECH department served approximately 320 graduate students. The department

offered six different degree program options, including Master’s and Doctorate degrees

and five additional graduate certificate options for students both domestic and

international.

In the department, two separate models of student organization are used. At the

Master’s level, students are required to enroll in five courses that pertain to the

foundations of educational technology and are otherwise free to take courses at their own

pace and within their own interest areas. Because of this, they are not necessarily part of a

cohort that takes classes together, although they may see familiar peers throughout their

41

coursework. On the contrary, the Doctorate program is more structured to create cohorts

among students admitted within the same year. In addition to taking similar courses at a

similar pace, these individuals would, hypothetically, advance through the program

together. This distinction is notable as the participants in this study may approach their

classmates and coursework differently based upon their graduate course organizations.

Support for students enrolled in the EDTECH department occurs on various

levels. All students have access to a technology support system within their learning

management system. In terms of advisement, support occurs at several levels with an

enrollment advisor, a program advisor, and an academic advisor. These support systems

are in place to better meet specific student needs at a distance. The level of

communication and support needed will vary based upon individual student experience

and need. While this study references the advisors, it should be noted that some

participants perceived the three advisory roles as one or were unaware of differences

amongst the positions.

Participants and Sampling

The first, quantitative phase of this study utilized a convenience sampling method

due to the availability and accessibility of the online student participants (Onwuegbuzie

& Collins, 2007). Participants in this study were enrolled both part- and full-time within

the graduate online EDTECH program delivered by the brick-and-mortar institution. An

initial sample size of approximately 96 – 194 graduate students within the entire

EDTECH department was sought for the online survey on the SCI-2 measurement – as

normal online survey response rates can fall between 30 to 60% (Nulty, 2008) – based on

the population of the EDTECH graduate students (N=323). This population included 236

42

Master’s students and 87 Doctorate students. This information was collected directly

from the EDTECH department and reflected the number of students enrolled and

registered in courses for the Fall 2018 semester. This number did not include “stop out”

students – those who have temporarily stopped taking courses. Upon recruitment, the

final count of quantitative survey participants was 91 students.

Within the second, qualitative phase of this study, a purposeful sample of the

students who completed the SCI-2 survey and indicated that they would be interested in

being interviewed was utilized. A purposive strategy, maximum variation sampling, was

used in this study (Creswell, 2013), allowing for the selection of participants whose

survey answers encouraged further investigation or supported the researcher in looking

for common themes (should survey answers be similar). For this study, a variance in the

program of study (Master’s vs Doctorate program of study), gender, and sense of

community (strong vs weak based on the quantitative survey responses) was sought. The

sample size for this phase was dependent upon student interest in being interviewed and

the saturation of the revealed themes. The number of participants sought within this

sample were guided with the recommendations of Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) who

suggest that 6 to 12 interviews should suffice in purposive sampling in understanding

common perceptions and experiences. Ten participants were recruited for this phase of

the study out of 17 that volunteered. Both phases of this study aimed to analyze the

representations of varied populations within the demographics – including age, gender,

educational level, marital status, etc.

43

Data Collection and Instruments

The timing and purpose of data integration are considered two of the most

important dimensions in describing one’s mixed methods approach (Guest, 2012). In this

study, two instruments were employed within the two phases to collect both quantitative

and qualitative data (Figure 1). The first phase included recruiting students to participate

in the study. This was completed in two ways, utilizing the same script, via email and

through a post in the department’s learning management system Moodle (Appendix A).

Reminder emails were sent each week in an effort to recruit as many participants as

possible. Each method contained a unique link to the online survey that allowed students

to opt in or out of the study.

Once recruited, the participants were asked to complete an online survey featuring

demographics questions and the SCI-2 (Appendix B). This survey was hosted in

Qualtrics, and all information, including the forms and collected data, were stored in a

secured, institutional drive with password protection. Online data collection via Qualtrics

was selected in order to seek a more representative sample, larger population, and to

increase participation (Hesse-Biber & Griffin, 2013). While collecting data online can

create the risk of excluding populations, the participants of this particular study (online

students) were assumed to perceive the online setting as a more natural and comfortable

venue for data collection. Hesse-Biber and Griffin (2013) noted that by using the online

medium for surveying, participants’ familiarity and potential convenience could be

employed for efficacious (i.e. realistic) participation. The choice of this venue was to

meet students directly where they could be most accessible and familiar with the context

of online learning.

44

Figure 1. Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design

The SCI-2 scale (Chavis, Lee, & Acosta, 2008) was selected as a primary

quantitative data collection instrument due to its high reliability and validity across

different groups and cultures. The classroom community scale (Rovai, 2002a), with the

intended focus on classroom experiences, may not have captured the full extent of how

online students relate to their larger University culture; the SCI-2 has the potential to

provide more nuance through subscales and a broader focus to students’ experience. The

SCI-2, in a surveyed population of 1,800, demonstrated a coefficient alpha of .94 for the

total sense of community index and a .79 - .86 coefficient alpha for the related subscales

(Chavis, Lee, & Acosta, 2008). The SCI-2 is a Likert-type survey that features 24

questions whose scores are combined to find the “Total Sense of Community Index”.

Additionally, this instrument features four subscales, derived from elements of theory on

social connectedness, that measure a participant’s reinforcement of needs, membership,

influence, and shared emotional connection. Upon completion of the SCI-2, students

were asked a final survey question as to whether they were interested in participating in

the later interview.

The second phase of data collection consisted of one-on-one, semi-structured

interviews with participants who had agreed to be contacted in the online survey.

Interviews were conducted via web conferencing to allow for the audio recording of the

conversation. Seventeen students had been previously asked in the survey to express

Quantitative Data

Collection (Survey)

Quantitative Data

Analysis

Qualitative Data

Collection (Interview)

Qualitative Data

Analysis

Quantitative &

Qualitative Data

Integration

45

willingness to participate in the interview. Of these seventeen, one of these volunteers

was excluded due to their prior experience with the researcher (he was a member of the

same doctoral cohort).

Ten participants were selected to contacted from the remaining pool of 16. These

ten students that were selected based on the results of their SCI-2 survey, allowing for

students with differing scores on their sense of community to expand on their

experiences. Demographic information, including: age, gender, program of student, and

employment status, were then considered in order to select a variety of participants.

Additionally, whether or not the student had visited the University campus was given

attention to ensure the perspective of truly remote students in addition to some students

who were more familiar with their school of attendance.

Interviews were scheduled individually via email (Appendix C). Six of these ten

students agreed to move forward and were scheduled at a time that worked best for them.

Four students did not respond to the email invitation. Because of this, the remaining six

participants within the pool were contacted and four of these six students agreed to move

forward with the interview. The remaining two students expressed an interest in

scheduling an interview, but could not find a time to meet within the interview window.

Once participants were selected and an interview was scheduled, students were

asked pre-structured interview questions guided by the results of the SCI-2 and

expanding on their sense of community (Appendix D). These questions pertained,

overall, to their level of connectedness, perceptions of the institution, and suggestions for

improvement in the university and were guided by the subscale themes, as defined by

McMillan and Chavis (1986) (Table 3.1). These established questions (Appendix D) were

46

followed closely within the interviews. Some additional questions (Appendix E) were

added to follow-up on student answers. However, these questions were not consistent

amongst all participants and were only used to delve deeper into topic brought up by the

individual participant. Particularly, questions pertaining to cohorts and connecting with

other online student would arise as students detailed their experiences in the program

with their peers.

Table 3.1 SCI-2 Subscale Definitions

Subscale McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) Subscale Definitions

Reinforcement of

Needs

“This is the feeling that members’ needs will be met by the

resources received through their membership in the group.” (p.

9)

Membership “Membership is the feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense

of personal relatedness.” (p. 9)

Influence “A sense of mattering, of making a difference to a group and

of the group mattering to its members.” (p. 9)

Shared Emotional

Connection

“The commitment and belief that members have shared and

will share history, common places, time together, and similar

experiences.” (p. 9)

Upon the completion of the individual interviews students were assigned aliases

to protect their privacy. As the qualitative phase of this research had a smaller sample, the

participant interviews were transcribed by the researcher into a Google document for

each participant. Some preliminary memoing occurred during the interview and

transcription process to highlight important quotes or ideas observed at the time (Saldaña,

2013).

Data Analysis and Procedures

In a mixed methods study, the data analysis is performed in two separate phases,

with a third phase of mixing this data together. In this study, first, the quantitative

47

analysis of the SCI-2 survey consisted of the reporting of frequencies, mean, median, and

mode. The data collected within the surveys was uploaded into Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) software to allow for analysis. Overall results of the SCI-2 were

reported within a frequency table, allowing for direct access to the participant responses.

Additionally, specific attention was paid to the mean, median, and mode values within

overall scores, subscale scores, and individual question responses in the hope of

providing a more informed look at how the students responded.

Qualitative data was uploaded into the coding program NVivo and two cycles of

coding (structural and pattern) occurred within this phase, with a third phase of coding to

occur in the mixing phase. Because of the nature of the research question, which asks

specifically what services and aid a higher learning institution could provide to support a

students’ sense of community, an elemental method of coding was used. Specifically,

structural coding was selected within the first coding cycle, allowing for the coding of all

statements pertaining to services and aid, which represents the topic of inquiry (Saldaña,

2013). These statements were coded into a parent node of “Services & Aid” within

NVivo. Transcripts were reviewed a second time and additional results that were missed

in the first review were added.

A second cycle of coding occurred once the first cycle was concluded. Pattern

coding was employed in this cycle in order to review the content within the parent node

of “Services & Aid” and establish themes from this content (Saldaña, 2013). These

excerpts were then reviewed and analyzed and several emergent themes began to

develop. Similar ideas were grouped into themes and the following sub-codes were

established: applicable emails, cohorts, counseling and advising, existing services,

48

memorabilia, and services not needed. All recorded services and aid from the parent node

fell into one of these children nodes.

The mixing of the content ensued as the third phase of this study. Connections to

the quantitative data were sought to both report the results and assist in triangulating the

data. First, the established themes (and the content of each) were reviewed and

connections to the theory of sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) were

explored. Themes that arose within the coding were coded themselves to a corresponding

subscale from the SCI-2 (Figure 2). This entailed a third cycle of coding which followed

an elaborative model as described by Saldaña (2013). An elaborative model is a method

that expands on an existing theory or study – in this case, sense of community (McMillan

& Chavis, 1986) – through a contemporary study following a similar theme or method,

but in a new context. This allowed the subscales from the SCI-2 to be connected to the

specific themes developed within this study allowing for the mixing of the two data sets

(Figure 3).

Figure 2. Qualitative Method

Interviews are

Transcribed

First Cycle of Structural

Coding

Content is Collected in Parent Node

Second Cycle of Pattern Coding

Themes are Established

into Children Nodes

Third Cycle of

Elaborative Coding

49

Figure 3. NVivo Code Book

Further, this cycle of coding was conducted in order to relate the qualitative

results to the quantitative results in a way that could provide further recommendations

pertaining to each specific subscale. This analysis was completed in an effort to provide

further meaning to results, triangulate the data, and provide support for the mixed

methods approach overall (Creswell, 2009).

Reducing Bias and Increasing Validity

Bracketing

Prior to the qualitative data collection and analysis, measures to limit bias and

improve credibility were put in place. One specific measure was that of bracketing.

Bracketing one’s knowledge and experience allows for the data to be perceived with a

50

fresh and open outlook (Creswell, 2013). Therefore, bracketing was employed in order to

withhold the researcher’s prior knowledge and assumptions about sense of community,

online learning practices, and the awareness of services and aid available at the

University or through the educational program. Bracketing this information allows the

researcher to perceive the participants’ experiences as an observer instead of as a fellow

member of the university, online instructor, and/or sense of community researcher.

Rich, Thick Descriptions

Rich, thick descriptions are used throughout this study to improve transferability

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Detailed descriptions of the context, participants, methodology,

and themes were included to allow readers to determine whether the findings of this study

can be transferred based on any shared characteristics (Creswell, 2013). Descriptions and

rationale for the tools and approaches were included to provide a full picture of the

overall study.

Interview Protocol

There was a delicate balance within the interview process to create comfort for

the participant while also ensuring validity and the aforementioned bracketing. During

the qualitative interviews, participants often interjected their own questions for the

researcher into the scripted interview questions. These statements have been redacted

from the transcripts to protect participant privacy, but such questions were often specific

toward the researcher’s experiences within the program and requested advice that could

pertain to the participants’ path through the program (i.e. “What are the comprehensive

exams like?").

51

An effort to restrict bias, in such instances, was essential during the interview

process to maintain validity. Therefore, once the interview questions were completed,

participants were encouraged to share any other pertinent points before the researcher

would end the interview and conclude the recording. Participants were then able to ask

the questions unrelated to the research topic. By working to ensure a cleaner separation –

for both the researcher and the participants – the researcher worked to consciously avoid

any verbal communication that could have influenced the participants’ answers

(Creswell, 2013). However, it could be noted that the participants’ desire to connect with

the researcher may be representative of a desire for community and/or aid in general.

Member Checking

Member checking occurred for several participants to ensure that the transcribed

interviews were accurate to the intended expression. Member checking was only

completed in instances where the participant could not be understood or used terminology

unfamiliar to the researcher. Clarification was sought via email and all participants that

were reached out to replied to this request. While member checking the transcripts and or

findings with participants can be an excellent way to strengthen and confirm the content

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985), it can also create drawbacks and issues with the collected data

(Sandelowski, 1993).

In the case of this study, the interviews themselves were difficult to schedule and

responses to member checking of all data could not be guaranteed. The transcripts were

long and member checking would require a significant amount of time and effort on the

part of the participant. Also, member checking created a risk of misinterpretation as the

participants may not be familiar with sense of community. The researcher felt that the

52

data sought (services and aid) for this study was fairly straightforward, not requiring an

abstract interpretation and therefore did not necessarily require follow-up to clarify.

Because of this, member checking was not conducted across the board.

Ethical Considerations

It was imperative that all participants within this study understood that all data

would remain private throughout the duration of this study and thereafter. As the

participants were students within the department, it was communicated and enforced that

no academic gain could be obtained by participating in this research. Further, participants

would not be punished nor face retaliation as a result of their input or lack of

participation. The anonymity and confidentiality of the research participants was

respected and all participation was voluntary.

Chapter Summary

Chapter three outlines the methodology employed within the study. This study

sought to provide a balanced look at students’ experiences within the EDTECH program

at the Northwest University in hopes of understanding student-to-university community.

The study of human emotion, especially at a distance, is a complicated venture. The

methodology presented within this chapter is one approach to gathering such complicated

data from two sources (survey and interview), while representing the individual

experience of being an online student. While this study cannot account for all online

universities, programs or students, it represents a step toward future work within this area

of research. The next chapter presents the results of the study.

53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Introduction

The results of this study are presented in three separate phases that answer the

three research questions. In the first phase, the quantitative survey outcome is presented,

providing an overall view of the participants’ sense of community to their providing

institution. In the second result phase, an analysis of the qualitative follow-up interviews

is provided, allowing for a deeper view of student experiences and opinions and also

providing the participants the opportunity to further detail their own thoughts on

community. Lastly, the third result phase presents the two sets of merged data,

triangulating the two sets of data to provide a deeper understanding of student sense of

community.

Phase I: Quantitative Results

The quantitative phase of this study sought to answer the first research question:

How do online graduate students perceive their overall sense of community with a higher

learning institution delivering their courses? Participants were sent an invitation and

reminder emails to participate in the Sense of Community Index II (SCI-2) survey

through their institutional email address and were given four weeks to participate.

Additionally, a single invitation to participate was posted to the students’ learning

management system. Students were encouraged to participate through an appeal to

altruism, as the email invitation was presented as a researcher in need of data and

specifically stated that the responses could potentially improve or maintain student

54

services by providing student perceptions to the state of the online program. No economic

or academic incentives were included in this study for participants. Reminders were sent

on a weekly basis to those who had partially completed the survey or had not yet started

to increase participation. Ninety-one students participated in the survey portion of this

study. The results of this survey are provided below. First is a review of the survey

participants and their demographics. This is followed by a breakdown of the SCI-2

survey answers starting with the validating question. This is followed by the total index

score which encompasses a total for all of the questions. This section ends with a review

of the subscale outcomes. Further discussion, interpretation, and potential application of

the results occurs in the next chapter.

Survey Participants

Ninety-one students participated in the SCI-2 survey, providing a 28% response

rate from the department online student population (N=323). According to Fosnacht,

Sarraf, Howe, and Peck (2017), a response rate above 25% is considered reliable within a

higher education setting of 250 or more students. The sample population featured a

variety of age groups (Table 4.1) with both female and male participants. Diversity

among students’ self-identified race was not as varied, with most students (92.3%)

identifying as Caucasian.

55

Table 4.1 Participants’ Demographic Information

Frequency Percent

Age Groups

18 to 24 years

25 to 34 years

2

29

2.2

31.9

35 to 44 years 36 39.6

45 to 54 years 16 17.6

55 to 64 years 8 8.8

Gender

Female

Male

60

31

65.9

34.1

Race

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Asian

1

3

1.1

3.3

Other 3 3.3

White 84 92.3

Participants were asked additional questions about their role(s) and interactions

with their University. These questions were intended to help further provide a picture of

participants’ experiences with the institution. First, students were asked to identify their

program of study (Table 4.2), revealing that about 40% of the participants were Doctoral

students and 59% were Master’s students within the EDTECH department. The EDTECH

department also offered potential students the opportunity to enroll in graduate certificate

programs without seeking a graduate degree. One student enrolled in a graduate

certificate program took this survey. The participants’ numbers (Table 4.2) were

representative of the programs’ students, which featured more Master’s than Doctoral

students.

56

Table 4.2 Participants’ Program of Study

Frequency Percent

Program

of Study

Doctoral Degree 36 39.6

Graduate Certificate 1 1.1

Master's Degree 54 59.3

Total 91 100.0

In similarity to the earlier demographics, the delineation of participants’ years

enrolled varied between 1 year and 5 or more years, presenting a wide variety of

experiences and, potentially, perceptions of comfort or familiarity with the institution

(Table 4.3). In looking at student interactions with the campus, most participants (67%)

had never visited the campus in person (Table 4.3). Despite the program being offered

remotely, however, 33% of students had been on campus at some point in time.

Table 4.3 Participants’ Demographic Information

Frequency Percent

Years in Program

1 year 26 28.6

2 years 25 27.5

3 years 20 22.0

4 years 9 9.9

5 or more 11 12.1

Visited Campus in Person

No 61 67.0

Yes 30 33.0

SCI-2: Initial Question

The SCI-2 features an initial, validating question for participants that asks how

important sense of community is to them when interacting with others (Table 4.4).

Chavis, Lee, & Acosta (2008) noted that this question can be used to interpret the results

of the SCI-2 and that the SCI-2 total index (all questions added together) can be

57

correlated with this question in most groups. Answers to this question were varied for

students enrolled in the EDTECH department. There was an almost even split between

students who found sense of community to be somewhat important or higher (52.8%) and

students who found sense of community to be not very important and lower (47.2%). Few

students answered in the extremes, with only three students (3.3%) indicating that sense

of community with others is very important to them and 0 (0%) students selecting that

they would prefer not to be a part of this community. Instead, the middle options

contained the highest values, with “Somewhat Important” having the highest frequency

(37.4%), followed by “Not Very Important” (28.6%).

Table 4.4 SCI-2 Initial Validating Question

Frequency Percent

1 - Prefer Not to be Part of This Community 0 0.00

2 - Not Important at All 17 18.7

3 - Not Very Important 26 28.6

4 - Somewhat Important 34 37.4

5 - Important 11 12.1

6 - Very Important 3 3.3

Total 91 100.0

Total Sense of Community Index

Once the validating question was analyzed, the SCI-2 total index was calculated

by adding all of the questions in the SCI-2 survey (Table 4.5) to find the overall total.

The lowest value for this index would be 0, meaning all questions were answered with

the lowest response of “not at all”. The highest value for this index could be 72, meaning

that all 24 questions were answered with the highest response of “completely”. Most

surveys featured a variety of values (between minimum 0 and maximum 3) that are

explored further within the results.

58

Table 4.5 SCI-2 Individual Questions

# Question

Q1 I get important needs of mine met because I am part of this community.

Q2 Community members and I value the same things.

Q3 This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.

Q4 Being a member of this community makes me feel good.

Q5 When I have a problem, I can talk about it with members of this community.

Q6 People in this community have similar needs, priorities, and goals.

Q7 I can trust people in this community.

Q8 I can recognize most of the members of this community.

Q9 Most community members know me.

Q10 This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes,

signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.

Q11 I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.

Q12 Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.

Q13 Fitting into this community is important to me.

Q14 This community can influence other communities.

Q15 I care about what other community members think of me.

Q16 I have influence over what this community is like.

Q17 If there is a problem in this community, members can get it solved.

Q18 This community has good leaders.

Q19 It is very important to me to be a part of this community.

Q20 I am with other community members a lot and enjoy being with them.

Q21 I expect to be a part of this community for a long time.

Q22 Members of this community have shared important events together, such as

holidays, celebrations, or disasters.

Q23 I feel hopeful about the future of this community.

Q24 Members of this community care about each other.

59

Descriptive statistics of the SCI-2 total index revealed that the mean of the

participant totals was 25.12, with a median of 23 and a mode of 20 (Table 4.6). However,

the standard deviation for the total index scored was high (13.723), revealing that there

were many scores spread out from the average. Because of this, frequencies were

provided to show the different total index values (Table 4.7). In table 4.7, the most

common values include 20 (6.6%), 0 (5.5%), and 18, 22, 29, 30, and 37 (4.4%

respectively).

Table 4.6 Total Index Descriptive Statistics

Mean 25.12

Median 23.00

Mode 20

Std. Deviation 13.723

Range 54

60

Table 4.7 Total Index Frequency of SCI-2

Frequency Percent

Total

Scores

0 5 5.5

1 1 1.1

2 2 2.2

4 1 1.1

5 1 1.1

8 1 1.1

11 1 1.1

12 2 2.2

13 2 2.2

14 3 3.3

15 2 2.2

16 2 2.2

17 2 2.2

18 4 4.4

19 3 3.3

20 6 6.6

21 2 2.2

22 4 4.4

23 3 3.3

24 3 3.3

25 1 1.1

26 1 1.1

27 1 1.1

29 4 4.4

30 4 4.4

33 3 3.3

34 1 1.1

35 1 1.1

37 4 4.4

38 2 2.2

39 3 3.3

40 3 3.3

41 2 2.2

42 2 2.2

44 2 2.2

46 1 1.1

48 2 2.2

50 1 1.1

51 2 2.2

54 1 1.1

Total 91 100.0

61

Subscales

The four subscales (reinforcement of needs, membership, influence, and shared

emotional connection) each consist of six questions that are added together with a total

that represents the strength of each category. Each subscale has a minimum total value of

“0” (all answers marked “not at all”) and a maximum total value of “18” (all answers

marked “completely”). The student responses were recorded and manually added to find

the value for each subscale. The mean, median, mode, and standard deviation were then

found for the total number of 91 participants (Table 4.8; Figure 4). These results

indicated that on average, students found Reinforcement of Needs to be the highest

scored category (7.69) and Membership to be the lowest (5.32) among subscales of their

sense of community. This was further supported by the median and mode in each

category (Reinforcement of Needs and Membership) which were, again, the highest and

lowest values respectively.

Table 4.8 SCI-2 Subscales Descriptive Statistics

Reinforcement

of Needs Membership Influence

Shared Emotional

Connection

Mean 7.69 5.32 6.35 5.75

Median 7.00 5.00 6.00 5.00

Mode 12 4 5 5

Std. Deviation 4.189 3.467 3.634 3.814

62

Figure 4. SCI-2 Subscale Descriptive Statistics

A more detailed analysis of each of the subscales follows, allowing for a more in-

depth look at the specific factors that had influenced each participant’s total index score.

Additionally, reviewing these subscales provides a better understanding of how the

students connected and did not connect to their institution. Subscales reveal the frequency

of their totals and the descriptive statistics of the individual questions that make up the

subscale score. These individual questions again narrow in on specific ideas that

influenced student response.

Reinforcement of Needs

McMillan and Chavis (1986) defined reinforcement of needs as “the feeling that

members’ needs will be met by the resources received through their membership in the

group” (p. 9). The SCI-2 features six questions pertaining to Reinforcement of Needs

(Table 4.9) that were added together to create a total score for the subscale. Participants

63

within the SCI-2 recorded the highest values within this subscale, which is reflected

within the frequency of scores with a score of 12 being the most common (Table 4.10). In

fact, 3 participants (3.3%) scored this subscale as being perfect (18/18). However, the

majority of participants (N=53) did have a score below 9, indicating that a rating of 3,

“Completely”, was rare. Six participants (6.6%) answered all of the questions with a

response of 0, “Not at All”. However, this subscale (reinforcement of needs) had the

lowest frequency of a total score of “0” out of the four scales reviewed (Table 4.13; Table

4.16; Table 4.19) reinforcing the results of the descriptive statistics and accounting for

why it received the highest results of the four.

Table 4.9 Reinforcement of Needs Individual Questions

# Question

Q1 I get important needs of mine met because I am part of this community.

Q2 Community members and I value the same things.

Q3 This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.

Q4 Being a member of this community makes me feel good.

Q5 When I have a problem, I can talk about it with members of this community.

Q6 People in this community have similar needs, priorities, and goals.

64

Table 4.10 Reinforcement of Needs Score Frequencies

Frequency Percent

Total

Score

0 6 6.6

1 2 2.2

2 3 3.3

3 2 2.2

4 4 4.4

5 11 12.1

6 11 12.1

7 9 9.9

8 5 5.5

9 7 7.7

10 4 4.4

11 6 6.6

12 13 14.3

13 3 3.3

14 2 2.2

18 3 3.3

Total 91 100.0

The descriptive statistics of the individual questions were fairly consistent across

the different measures (mean, median, mode) (Table 4.11). There was no standout

question that scored much higher or much lower than the rest. The highest mean came

from Question 6 (1.52), which asked participants to rate whether people in this

community have similar needs, priorities, and goals. The lowest mean (.92) came from

Question 1, which asked participants to rate whether they got their own important needs

met by being a part of the community. Question 5, which asks: “When I have a problem,

I can talk about it with members of this community”, had the second lowest mean in this

set, but was also the only question that had a mode of “0”.

65

Table 4.11 Reinforcement of Needs Individual Questions Descriptive Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Mean .92 1.24 1.46 1.48 1.07 1.52

Median 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

Mode 1 1 2 2 0a 2

Std. Deviation .833 .735 .821 .899 .964 .848

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown Membership

McMillan and Chavis (1986) defined membership as “the feeling of belonging or

of sharing a sense of personal relatedness” (p. 9). The SCI-2 features six questions

pertaining to Membership (Table 4.12) that were added together to create a total score for

the subscale. This subscale had the lowest mean (5.32) amongst the four subscales and

the participant score frequencies reflect this (Table 4.13), with 74 participants having a

total score of 8 or below. In fact, over half of the participants (57.2%) had a score of 5 or

lower. No participants scored this subscale perfectly with all answers of “Completely” (3)

which would have provided a total score of 18.

Table 4.12 Membership Individual Questions

# Question

Q7 I can trust people in this community.

Q8 I can recognize most of the members of this community.

Q9 Most community members know me.

Q10 This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes,

signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.

Q11 I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.

Q12 Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.

66

Table 4.13 Membership Score Frequencies

Frequency Percent

Total

Score

0 7 7.7

1 7 7.7

2 6 6.6

3 9 9.9

4 13 14.3

5 10 11.0

6 9 9.9

7 4 4.4

8 9 9.9

9 5 5.5

10 4 4.4

11 3 3.3

12 2 2.2

13 2 2.2

14 1 1.1

Total 91 100.0

In looking at the specific questions, only question 7 and 10 had a median higher

than 1.0 and a mode higher than 0 (Table 4.14), indicating that for most questions the

most common answer was “Not at All”. However, question 7, which asked participants to

rate whether they can trust people in this community, had a mean of 1.53 and a mode of 2

indicating that participant answers fell between “Somewhat” and “Mostly”. The lowest

mean (.51) came from question 9, which asked students whether most community

members know them. Most students indicated “Not at All” for this item. It should be

noted that Question 9 is the lowest rated question in the entire SCI-2 survey.

Table 4.14 Membership Questions Descriptive Statistics

Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Mean 1.53 .69 .51 1.36 .62 .62

Median 2.00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 .00

Mode 2 0 0 1 0 0

Std. Deviation .874 .878 .794 1.091 .742 .727

67

Influence

McMillan and Chavis (1986) defined influence as “a sense of mattering, of

making a difference to a group and of the group mattering to its members.” (p. 9). The

SCI-2 features six questions pertaining to Influence (Table 4.15) that were added together

to create a total score for the subscale. This subscale was the second highest with a mean

of 6.35 and a median of 6. This subscale had a mode of 5 (13.2%), with most values

falling around this total. In fact, participant scores between 4 – 6 accounts for 34.1% of

the total values (Table 4.16). Interestingly, however, when looking at the frequency of the

total scores, Influence had a high number of participants (8.8%) rate all of their questions

“Not at All” (which has a value of “0”) for this subscale compared to Membership, which

had a lower mean. Ultimately, these low rating surveys were offset by the increased

frequencies in the middle.

Table 4.15 Influence Individual Questions

# Question

Q13 Fitting into this community is important to me.

Q14 This community can influence other communities.

Q15 I care about what other community members think of me.

Q16 I have influence over what this community is like.

Q17 If there is a problem in this community, members can get it solved.

Q18 This community has good leaders.

68

Table 4.16 Influence Score Frequencies

Frequency Percent

Total

Score

0 8 8.8

1 2 2.2

2 2 2.2

3 7 7.7

4 9 9.9

5 12 13.2

6 10 11.0

7 7 7.7

8 7 7.7

9 7 7.7

10 6 6.6

11 7 7.7

12 5 5.5

13 1 1.1

17 1 1.1

Total 91 100.0

In looking at the individual questions within the Influence subscale (Table 4.17),

Question 18 has the highest mean (1.66), median (2.0) and mode (2) and was also the

highest rated question out of the entire SCI-2 survey. Question 18 asked participants

whether they felt that the community has good leaders. A median and mode of 2

indicated that participants feel that the University “Mostly” has good leaders. In contrast,

the lowest mean (.55) for a question in the Influence subscale is Question 16, which

asked participants whether they have influence over what the community is like. In

addition to a low mean, this question has a median of 0 as well as a mode of 0 (“Not at

All”), indicating that students strongly felt that they do not have influence in this area of

their community.

69

Table 4.17 Influence Individual Questions Descriptive Statistics

Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18

Mean .74 1.23 .96 .55 1.22 1.66

Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00 2.00

Mode 0 1 1 0 1 2

Std. Deviation .758 .776 .842 .764 .841 .897

Shared Emotional Connection

McMillan and Chavis (1986) defined Shared Emotional Connection as “the

commitment and belief that members have shared and will share history, common places,

time together, and similar experiences” (p. 9). The SCI-2 features six questions pertaining

to Shared Emotional Connection (Table 4.18) that were added together to create a total

score for the subscale. With a mean of 5.75, Shared Emotional Connection had the

second lowest mean of the four subscales within the SCI-2. While the most common total

for these six questions was “5”, this subscale also had the highest number of respondents

answer all six questions with “Not at All”, resulting in a total score of “0” (N=11) (Table

4.19). The frequency table for this subscale provides insight into how this subscale can

have the highest number of “0” scores, but not the lowest mean overall. It highlights the

many different values, some high, some low, and many in the middle – demonstrating

that participants had varying (perhaps polarizing) views of how this subscale’s needs are

met. This variation resulted in many of the low scores being countered by much higher

scores, leaving the Reinforcement of Needs subscale mean to be in the middle of the four.

70

Table 4.18 Shared Emotional Connection Individual Questions

# Question

Q19 It is very important to me to be a part of this community.

Q20 I am with other community members a lot and enjoy being with them.

Q21 I expect to be a part of this community for a long time.

Q22 Members of this community have shared important events together, such as

holidays, celebrations, or disasters.

Q23 I feel hopeful about the future of this community.

Q24 Members of this community care about each other.

Table 4.19 Shared Emotional Connection Score Frequencies

Frequency Percent

Total

Score

0 11 12.1

1 2 2.2

2 3 3.3

3 9 9.9

4 11 12.1

5 14 15.4

6 11 12.1

7 4 4.4

8 4 4.4

9 2 2.2

10 5 5.5

11 6 6.6

12 7 7.7

15 2 2.2

Total 91 100.0

Question 23 has the highest mean, median, and mode of all the questions provided

within this survey (Table 4.20). This question asked students whether they felt hopeful

about the future of this community. Question 20 has the lowest mean for this subscale as

well as the lowest mean for any question within the survey. This question asked whether

students are with other community members a lot and whether they enjoy being with

71

them. Most questions within this subscale had a mode of “0”, with both question 20 and

22 sharing a median of “0.00” as well. The high number of “Not at All” answers aligns

with the previous results of the frequency totals. The individual questions help highlight

which questions (particularly question 23) increased this subscale’s standing amongst the

four means despite the many 0-point answers.

Table 4.20 Shared Emotional Connection Individual Questions Descriptive

Statistics

Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24

Mean 1.02 .45 .84 .52 1.54 1.40

Median 1.00 .00 1.00 .00 2.00 1.00

Mode 0a 0 0 0 2 1

Std. Deviation .894 .687 .910 .780 .946 .842

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Phase II: Qualitative Results

The qualitative phase of this study sought to answer the second research question:

What are the student perceptions of the services and/or aid a higher learning institution

could provide to support its online graduate students’ sense of community? The results of

the participant interviews indicated that there were varying opinions as to what aided and

services could have been provided, which could have been improved, and whether or not

some services and support were needed. The resulting themes from these interviews were

identified and explored. These themes were supported with thick, rich descriptions of the

interviews and direct quotes from the participants. Further discussion of considerations

and impacts of these results follow in the next chapter.

72

Interview Participants

Ten participants were selected for the qualitative phase of this study based on

demographic information and SCI-2 total index scores. These participants were selected

based on their interest in being interviewed (an option selected from the previous

quantitative survey) and their demographic information of the participants. This study

sought to represent different groups of students, including students from different age

groups, genders, and programs of study (Table 4.21). Additionally, demographic

information regarding student experiences with online courses, years enrolled in their

current program, and whether or not students had visited the Northwest University’s

campus are presented below to help illustrate the sample’s varied backgrounds with

online education in general.

Table 4.21 Interview Participants’ Demographic Information

Frequency Percent

Age Groups

25 to 34 years

4

40.0

35 to 44 years 1 10.0

45 to 54 years 3 30.0

55 to 64 years 2 20.0

Gender

Female

Male

5

5

50.0

50.0

Program of Study

Doctoral Degree

Master's Degree

5

5

50.0

50.0

Years in Program

1 year 2 20.0

2 years 5 50.0

4 years 1 10.0

5 or more 2 20.0

Visited Campus in

Person

No 3 30.0

Yes 7 70.0

73

While a variety of responses were sought to answer how important community

was (the SCI-2 initial validating question), the students who ultimately agreed and

followed through with the interview process all rated community as being “Somewhat

Important” or higher (Table 4.22). The three students who rated community as “Not Very

Important” (or lower) were contacted via email, but ultimately did not respond to a

request to be interviewed. Nevertheless, although all students interviewed valued

community, their perceptions of the total community index and subscales varied, which

in turn provided different perceptions and interpretations of community within the

interviews themselves.

Table 4. 22 Interview Participants’ SCI-2 Validating Question Responses

Frequency Percent

1 (Prefer not to be a Part of this Community)

2 (Not Important at All)

3 (Not Very Important)

4 (Somewhat Important)

0

0

0

4

00.0

00.0

00.0

40.0

5 (Important) 5 50.0

6 (Very Important) 1 10.0

Total 10 100.0

For the interview participants, the mean values of the SCI-2 total index scale and

subscales were higher than the values of the total survey participants (Table 4.23).

However, there were patterns similar to the data in previous results. The order of means

from the highest mean to lowest is in the same order as it is in the quantitative

populations: reinforcement of needs (highest), influence, shared emotional connection,

and membership (lowest).

74

Table 4. 23 Interview Participants’ SCI-2 Scale Statistics

Total Index

Reinforcement

of Needs Membership Influence

Shared

Emotional

Connect.

Mean 33.50 10.10 7.50 8.00 7.90

Std. Deviation 14.175 4.332 4.143 3.162 4.433

Qualitative Coding Cycles

Two cycles of coding occurred within the qualitative data analysis phase. An

additional, third cycle of coding occurring within the mixing phase utilizing both the

quantitative and qualitative data. In the qualitative phase, first, an elemental method of

coding was selected – specifically, structural coding, in order to identify all data related

to services and aid. Once this cycle was complete, a second cycle of coding, specifically,

a pattern method of coding allowed for identification of specific themes related to the

larger services and aid data. Each of these cycles and the resulting data are reviewed

within this section.

Outcome of Structural Coding

Structural coding was selected as the first cycle of coding in order to identify

references specifically to services and aid within the transcripts and therefore collect data

relevant to answering the second research question (“What are the student perceptions of

the services and/or aid a higher learning institution could provide to support its online

graduate students’ sense of community?”). This first of cycle coding yielded 46 total

references to services and aid within the ten participant transcripts. Each participant

referenced services and aid at least 2 separate times during their interview (Table 4.24)

with the highest number of references to services and aid being 9. Most students (N=3)

made 5 references to services and aid. By collecting references to services and aid from

75

all of the participants through the structural coding process, the amount of text was

reduced to allow for a second cycle of coding that would more deeply analyze this bank

of answers.

Table 4. 24 Participants Services & Aid Reference Frequency

Participant Alias Services & Aid Frequency

“Bob” 6

“Linda” 4

“Tina” 6

“Louise” 5

“Gene” 8

“Gayle” 3

“Phillip” 5

“Jimmy” 4

“Teddy” 6

“Gretchen” 2

Outcomes of Pattern Coding

The results of the first cycle of structured coding were analyzed in a second cycle

of pattern coding. This entailed identifying sub-codes within the services and aid based

on common patterns and themes. The resulting themes that resulted from this cycle of

coding included: existing aid and services not offered remotely, new ideas for aid and

services that could be provided, student cohort groupings, school memorabilia,

institutional emails applicable to online students, counseling and advising services, and

opinions that further student services and aid are not needed. A short description of each

with the associated subscale is featured in Table 4.25.

76

Table 4. 25 Sub-Code Theme Descriptions

Theme & Description

Applicable Emails – Communications that students receive from the University and

related organizations need to apply to the remote student.

Cohorts – Students not participating in a cohort reflect on the impact of being a part of

such a system.

Counseling & Advising – Counseling and advising services to assist in both mental

health and academic progress throughout the program of study. a

Existing Services & Aid – Services and aid currently offered by the University that do

not have online access.

Ideas for Services & Aid – Ideas for services that would further create a sense of

community for online graduate students.

Memorabilia – Items that would improve a sense of community for online graduate

students.

Services & Aid Are Not Needed – Student answers that indicated that services and aid

are not needed to improve a sense of community for online graduate students.

a While counseling and advising are existing services, so many participants reflected on state of these

resources a separate theme was created to highlight these results.

Themes were established when two or more participants stated a need for the same

service or aid (Table 4.26). While two students may not constitute a large representation

overall, in proportion to the ten students interviewed for this study, two students addressing

the same topic seemed to warrant mention within the results. Further analysis of each theme

will be explored within this section with supporting quotes from the interviews.

77

Table 4.26 Participants Addressing Sub-Code Themes

Theme Number of Participants Addressing Theme

Applicable Emails 5

Cohorts 3

Counseling & Advising 5

Existing Services & Aid 8

Ideas for Services & Aid 5

Memorabilia 2

Services & Aid Are Not Needed 6

Applicable Emails

Throughout the one-on-one interviews, in looking at how the University could

improve a sense of community for its online graduate students, one of the most common

concerns among the interviewed participants (both Master’s students and Doctoral

students) was the perceived misuse of the institutional email by the University, on-

campus programs, and student organizations. In particular, students reported receiving

too many emails regarding on-campus events that they, as an online student, could not

participate in: “As an online student, I'll get invited to events that are in [the Northwest

University] that have no opportunity for me to connect or participate. And I've actually

emailed people to follow up about that.” This point was further iterated by students who

were not only remote, but were in widely varying time zones due to their international

locales:

Some of the organizations, and stuff, reach out to online students, but it doesn't

apply. I'm in Germany right now. It's different for us. Some of the online students

that are in [the state], or you know... but it just didn't apply to me in that sense.

78

For some, the emails were more of an annoyance, but others found that receiving

invitations to events that they could not attend made them feel less connected:

I'm just smiling because I was thinking my colleague and I did get all these emails

together. We joke about all the stuff that they offer. You know, I'll say this: I wish

they wouldn't send us the emails to hang out at the meetings they have with free

food and stuff like that. And in all seriousness, that does actually make me feel

less connected.

However, while University emails proved to be a major theme within the

interviews, participants were also open to sharing simple solutions to resolve this issue.

Several of the interviewed participants recognized that the email problem has two

potential resolutions: First, the University could separate fully online students in emails

groups so that they would not receive emails for on campus events not pertaining to

them: “I would say that's the extent of it: just to invite us to things that we're actually able

to participate in remotely.” Second, the University and related organizations could try to

include different methods for online students to participate and connect:

I think that like it should be a pretty standard expectation: that if there's

programming happening, it is accessible in some way shape or form. Even if it's

like a recorded webinar - it's available in some shape or form for online students.

Further, one participant was quick to note that emails from the smaller, more

specific, EDTECH department were helpful. These emails targeted the online students,

and tried for them to connect:

I do get invitations to like, "Oh somebody is defending [their] dissertation. You

know, you can tune it in, or you can watch". You know, they do offer some things,

79

but it's never anything but I've taken advantage of. I would say they do make some

effort. They do make some effort to bring us in when there's something that we

can actually tune in for.

This endeavor, on the part of the EDTECH department, paired with the student comments

and ideas, could potentially provide a template for the University and its organizations to

approach their emails and events in a more mindful manner.

Memorabilia

Although not as widely commented on as student emails, the theme of

memorabilia was brought up twice, with participants highlighting how the act of sending

school gear to the online student could potentially help establish a sense of community

from the point of enrollment forward. One participant reflected on his own experience as

an instructor and how the gift of memorabilia increased his community: “One of the

things that made a big difference to me is [that] right when I got hired they sent me a

shirt. And it was a nice collared shirt with their [logo] embroidered on it and everything.

I felt more like I was part of that... part of that community now from that.”

However, the role of the University versus the role of the EDTECH department

itself varied between these two points of view. While respondents seemed to agree that

the act of sending memorabilia should take place upon enrollment, one participant felt it

could come from the University, while the other felt that it should come from the

EDTECH department:

I think one way that like I probably would feel a little bit more connection is that

if, like, when I was accepted I got, like... they shipped me like a T-shirt or like a

80

keychain or like something that might help like connect to the community a little

bit. But, it was... like... I got an email. You're accepted.

Although this theme was not further explored within these interviews, the fact that two

individuals brought this theme up unprompted (i.e. the concept of memorabilia was not

brought up in the interview questions), demonstrates that there could potentially be a

desire from the larger population to be recognized for their membership to the University,

despite not being physically on campus. However, with only two students bringing this

topic up within this initial study, it could also be sheer coincidence and not further

represent the population. That said, one participant brought up an interesting point of how

her membership to the Northwest University created a connection to her colleagues, a

connection that could be increased should memorabilia be distributed:

I'm a football fan and so I've watched [the University’s team] play before I

started there. Some of my colleagues at school are [University] graduates so

there's been a little peripheral. They found out about this program at [the

University] and I've had - like I came into work the other day and someone put a

[University] sticker on my desk.

Cohorts

The role of the department was a difficult concept to separate throughout the

interview process. Indeed, the idea of a sense of community to the larger University, to

many students, had to start at the department itself. In fact, one participant, a master’s

student, struggled to understand the relevance of this study, when – to her – more

attention needed to be paid to the classroom and peers:

81

I'm enjoying the program and I like that you're doing some research about the

community for online learning because that seems to be such a way that

education is moving. To be able to offer things. But I really, really feel pretty

strongly there's a value in knowing the people that you are learning with and

knowing the people that are teaching you that shouldn't be overlooked and if

there's ways that that can be incorporated into a truly, you know, online

asynchronous program. I think that just would add a lot of strength to a program.

With this in mind, it was not surprising that one of the themes that emerged,

cohorts, directly related to the setup of the EDTECH department itself. This theme has

been included within this research as the idea of cohorts in general could potentially be

applied to the larger institution. This is further explored within the discussion. In terms of

the participant interviews, currently, Master’s students are not a part of a cohort system,

while the Doctoral students are. The theme of cohorts emerged from interviews with

Master’s students and in one interview with a Doctoral student who shared the

experiences of one of his colleagues (who is enrolled in the Master’s program).

One Master’s student explained her experience in a course that had six to seven

students, noting that: “It might have been my favorite course throughout the program,

and I'm not sure if I enjoyed it because of the material that we were talking about - or if it

was because the interactions were so rich, because we were such a small group of

students.” She further highlighted the impact that connecting with the students had on her

course experience, “We got to know each other, know what we were doing, how oh it was

progressing and I felt like we really had a sense course that I don't think I've felt in any

other courses.” When further pressed to whether she would be interested in a cohort

82

system, she answered: “You get to know some of the classmates, you know we all come

from such different walks of life and with such diverse backgrounds that I think going

through the cohort model - even if it took longer - I would be okay with, because then I

would get to know some of them better.”

This was echoed by the doctoral student, who shared the frustrations of his

colleague when asked if he felt community in the EDTECH department:

I have felt that in the Doctoral program, because it's a little bit more structured

and we stick with a cohort. I have my colleague that I actually just spent probably

45 minutes a couple days ago talking off the ledge, right? The, ‘I can't handle

anymore. I'm so isolated and alone. I don't feel like have anybody to turn to on

this whole thing. It's like they're talking public school principals and I don't… I'm

not a public-school teacher and I don't know what they're talking about. I don't

know how to keep up.’ He feels that. I felt that in my Master's program - that was

all online. Because it wasn't a stuck together cohort through the whole thing. But,

I feel like I know everybody in my cohort in the doctoral cohort and I feel like it's

made a really big difference.

However, not all students wanted a cohort system for the Master’s program as it

could potentially eliminate the freedom and flexibility the program current has. One

Master’s student noted that while she appreciated sharing courses with some of the same

students throughout the years, a cohort system would not be something she would like to

have taken part of: “If I had to be in a cohort, you know when my husband had surgery or

I had pneumonia, I couldn't have had that flexibility to say, ‘I can't take classes right

83

now.’” This interviewee highlighted that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all system for the

department.

Existing Services

Existing services entails programs and aid that are currently available to students,

but may not necessarily be available online. However, this theme also covers programs

that are currently offered to online that students, that the participants were not aware of,

or needed further direction about. As with many of the conversations throughout the

interviews, this theme draws from services and aid offered at both the department level

and the larger university. Participants were passionate about the services they would like

included, with one student noting that all programs should be available for the online

population:

I would imagine that the online student population of [the University] is growing.

That would be my hunch. That means more dollars. That's an increasing revenue

stream for the institution and it's like... I guess I'm talking in circles a little bit, but

I guess I would expect pretty much all programming.

This was repeated by another student, who introduced the idea that by providing ways to

attend events, online students would be more likely to connect with one and other:

I remember being on the college campus and at night we would tend to have

special speakers, group talks, and you know there were things to go do. You

know, when you're off campus there aren't as much. So, given the opportunity to

convene into something for a reason would give me a reason to you know email

somebody in my cohort say ‘Hey did you hear about this? Do you want to go?

84

Other participants were more specific in their needs when asked what services the

University could provide. One student contemplated the need for tutoring: “Well, I would

be curious to know… I haven't had to do this but if I needed tutoring in graduate level.”

While another participant explained the importance of accessing the writing center –

something this participant had access to as an undergraduate at the University:

It was at least helpful to have someone read over some papers before turning

them in. So, if that was an online resource I think that would be incredibly helpful.

It's hard to write a paper and get feedback after you've turned it in. You know, it

would be nice to get that as you write

Interestingly, even students who were close to finishing their program of study

were interested in services. One participant, at the end of the master’s program, looked at

future alumni services and whether or not they were provided:

Maybe there's already something in place but I feel like some sort of an alumni

group would be helpful in that... you know, learning is a lifelong journey and

those of us that have graduated will have already had that experience at [the

University]. So, we're already on the same page, you know in regard to what

we've been taught and so I feel like they could... if there isn't one in place, they

could do a great job promoting that community by providing a space for alumni

to be able to collaborate and work with each other to promote growth and

knowledge amongst everyone.

It should be noted that alumni services are indeed available for online students, which is

why this topic is included within the existing services theme. Interestingly, the alumni

page highlights several opportunities for students to connect while at a distance, creating,

85

perhaps, a precedent or example for other service departments. Communication for these

services may need to be a greater focus so that students are aware. Further, this

participant noted his lack of knowledge about graduation – another area that could be

targeted to help online students feel included:

I haven't been sent anything yet about, like, livestream for graduation. Maybe

that's coming. I have no idea. I feel like maybe helping like the online students

who are graduating - also providing a similar alternative resource to them as

they prepare for you know finishing everything up.

At the department level, several participants referenced the learning management

system within their interview. Specifically, participants spoke positively about the

homepage, as being a source of information and connection:

So, when we log into [learning management system] there's that there's that place

right there in the middle on the home page where many people post

announcements about things happening in the EDTECH world and opportunities

for people - whether it be, like, opportunities to present, opportunities to be hired.

And, so, that's fairly active. I would say at least a few times a month there's some

activity going on there.

Social media was also referenced within a participant interview; however, this student

was not aware of the department (nor University’s) pages:

I don't know. Like maybe they do have social media stuff, but I'm just not aware

of. Facebook and Twitter and that type of a thing - that might help me feel a little

bit of included.

86

Despite this, the result that the student would feel more included with these offerings

indicates that both the University and EDTECH department should most likely continue

this social media effort. Another student actively using social media (Google Plus) within

her online work noted how the Doctoral cohort lacked participation: “There really was a

push initially with our cohort and of course - nobody used it.” While a solution to

increase participation isn’t offered by this participant, she did highlight how effective

social media (in particular, Google Plus) could be in creating community: “I've been

teaching at an online school and we use it all the time and it's so effective that... there are

so many tools that could be used to just get even a few minutes of that face-to-face.”

Beyond the larger department level, several participants highlighted how the

instructors themselves could or already were providing services that assisted in building a

sense of community directly within the classes. One student noted how a professor’s

video helped him feel more connected to the campus: “[The professor] walked the

campus and then videoed some stuff and put it in narrating tour so that we who have

never been there kind of felt like, hey, well we have some idea of what the campus looks

like. I didn't know what to expect watching the video, but afterward I did feel like a little

bit more information about the place. I felt a little more connected there.”

A different participant felt that current opportunities to connect could be

improved. This participant highlighted the importance of language and explaining the

purpose of an event: “One of professors held happy hours, but it was him talking the

whole time. It was a 16-minute happy hour. And I think, that phrase... when I hear that

phrase, I think of interacting and talking. With him - what it was, was a synchronous

lecture essentially.” The participant further explored how the idea itself, if employed

87

correctly, could help community: “I think having an optional happy hour... or a social

hour, or whatever you want to call it - that I think would be... I would find it really

helpful for the community building aspect.”

These two examples demonstrated how small actions had large impacts on the

community of students. Further, these examples demonstrated that (once again) there was

not a one-size-fits-all model. This point was highlighted by two other participants, the

first who noted that she was self-sufficient in getting the help she needed:

I don't know if people use more of those resources, but I never had that feeling

like man if I was on campus everything would be so much better. I feel like tools

we have or any type of online education, I feel like it's just a matter of finding the

tools and I felt like I had everything I needed.

A second participant noted that while a team of instructors could help streamline the

effort on community, she still held an appreciation for the work that was being done at

the time of the study – even if it did not help her specifically:

My only thing is I think a team of instructors working on that sense of community.

But I've also hopefully been clear. I feel like they've made that effort and it just

maybe didn't work for me and I thought maybe approaching it a little differently

might help.

Counseling & Advising

Under the umbrella of existing services is the theme of student counselling and

advising. Due to the prevalence of these topics within our interviews, a separate theme

was created to address these needs. However, the definition of these services varied

88

between the participants. The three topics discussed included traditional mental health

counseling, class advisement, and Doctoral program advising.

The first service, mental health counseling, is currently available at the University

for on-campus students. There is not an online option at this time. The absence of this

online component was noted within two interviews: “I think that the university has a lot

of on-campus things that are open to students. You know, whether it’s the counseling

center which, you know, that's something the on-campus students can access that the

online students can't.” Additionally, one participant questioned how student fees are used

for programs not available online: “The counseling services department, for example,

they only offer supports for students on campus and it makes me curious, like, how much

if any of my tuition goes to funding those things?” Students fees for the EDTECH

department are not used for on-campus services. However, this may not be the case for

all online programs – therefore, the student raises an important point about student access

to services paid for.

Both class advising and individual advising for student dissertations currently

exist for online students enrolled within the department. Master’s students receive

program/class advising while Doctoral students, who are on a pre-planned track, have

annual check-ins and dissertation advisement. Students in both programs expressed

concerns about the level of support that they needed. First, a student in the Doctoral

program highlighted issues of scheduling:

I guess really the only example I can think of is I was asked to set up a check-in

about my course of study. But then the person never set up a time after I sent them

the time. And when I followed up, they still didn't set up a time. And then I

89

followed up a third time, and they were out of town. That was like kind of a

withdrawal from the community building account, if you will.

Meanwhile, a soon-to-be graduating Master’s student expressed similar concerns over not

having met their program advisor throughout their studies:

So, I guess one thing I'll throw out there, because it's kind of always interested me

over my five years is the advisor position at [the University]. I'm not sure why we

have one. I never heard from the person in five years. You know, if that was really

an advisor person. Now it may be that there's only one and may answer for you

know hundreds of people and you're not going to reach out to all of them you

know. But, not once in five years that you would they write and say, ‘Well how is

your program? Don't need anything from me?’ You know? I'm at the graduate

level. I should be able to pick my courses out and I really shouldn't need [help]...

but… So, the person I went to when I had questions was [admissions advisor].

Another Doctoral student expressed the need to meet her program advisor sooner and

develop a relationship that would assist her in the final phases of the program:

Maybe connecting with [your dissertation advisor] a little sooner. Almost like

having that sort of partnership develop. See, I never had a class with [professor

name redacted]. All of a sudden: ‘Sure, here's your person!’

Similar to the results of the other themes, students’ needs varied, demonstrating

the difficult balance required to satisfy the group as a whole or majority. For example,

while most students expressed a need for additional support from counseling and

advisement, one Doctoral student expressed that he did not necessarily need any course

advisement, and instead only needed the current annual check-in:

90

And I know that I was getting emails about you know you're there is where was

one... the registration appointment! And talk to somebody. And it's like, ‘No, I

already know what classes I'm going to take. It's already in my plan.’ So... I do

appreciate that we do kind of... I think it's twice a year we do the kind of annual

review thing just to make sure everything is on track and that's really helpful.

This example highlights the importance of communicating and adapting to the needs to

the individual. Much as in the classroom, different students will have different needs to

meet.

Ideas for Services

While the theme of existing services looks at current programs and aid that can be

adapted to the online setting, a separate theme was created for new, innovative, items that

could be developed. Students within the EDTECH department are regularly working with

the latest technology, allowing for many of the participants in the interviews to directly

apply their knowledge and experience. The ideas for services mostly centered around

connecting with others – both within the department and outside it. One participant

highlighted the value in collecting information into a monthly department newsletter:

I think, in particular maybe like a newsletter or like a ‘State of the Department’.

And I think breaking that down by departments, so, like I'm not interested in what

other departments are doing in their online programs, but I am interested in what

EdD students are doing. So, I wonder if... like, having a newsletter that spotlights

different students and different activities.

91

The idea of connecting with students within the EDTECH department was further echoed

by another interview participant, who felt there could be value in meeting others within

the department for a short, optional, on-campus, in-person session:

I don't know if you could make an optional on campus visit, like maybe a…. like

you mentioned the cohort group. If there was a cohort going through and we had,

you know, a one week on campus maybe for like an introductory course or meet

your professors - because there's - it's hard to reach out even to professors

because [they are] a picture on my screen. I mean I don't even know what their

voice sounds like. So, unless... That's the piece I think helps build that sense of

community. But, again, you know when you've got people over the U.S. like for me

that's like a $700 plane ticket.

Indeed, all students might not be able to participate in such a meeting. However, in

looking at on-campus visits, the idea of using virtual reality as a way for students to “be

on campus” while studying remotely was also discussed:

I'm gonna get on the VR train again and say that if there are virtual points – Say

for example, if we get like posts maybe on top of like posts or a pole where it

could be a virtual standing point where you could log into that place and then

look around. You could be there and look around and then have a sense of being

there.

While none of these options offered a simple solution to building a sense of community,

they did start a dialogue as to what areas could be supplemented to increase greater

connection.

92

Many ideas were shared for how students could connect with their peers.

Participants highlighted how technology could be used to counter the distance, and allow

students to connect on a different medium. The idea of a happy hour (discussed in

existing services) was again brought up:

I worked for the company right now and we do... every month or two we do like a

happy hour. Yeah, and you bring up a beverage like right now I'm drinking a

coffee because it's not nighttime, right? If we did a happy hour I would, you know

depending on your time zone, you bring a beverage that's feels right.

This participant further explored how students could complete an activity, in this case – a

movie, together remotely. He provided an example of how he and his coworkers

connected while working remotely:

Last night we actually had a movie night using an online service called Rabbit

and it allows you to play a movie for up to 25 people and it's virtual so it's like

you and I could both watching this movie on the screen, but I would see you in the

corner and we could chat. You can... there's an opportunity to respond to the

movies -so there's like a laughing button kind of like how Facebook has

responses, but they pop up on the screen. So, during a really funny part of the

movie you can click the laugh button and it shows it. It allows you to engage with

each other.

Gathering ideas and experiences like this can help develop programming for online

students that may have not been considered before. Participants used their knowledge of

educational technology to present innovative means of coming together:

93

I think that having a sponsored venue to be able to pull people together for a

common purpose and then you know add some additional socialization into that

construct. There's a 3-D virtual reality program called AltSpace and I think that

would be kind of a neat thing to use the VR platform to bring people together from

a variety of different departments to maybe say come a witness speaker. So,

you're there for common venue but then to be able to separate and talk to other

people in that space.

In addition to connecting with peers, participants highlighted the potential for

connecting with other students at the University and beyond. First, one participant

suggested the use of webcasting for events to allow online students to attend them

remotely. This solution directly responds to the earlier requests for extracurricular,

nonacademic, programming access discussed within the existing services section:

I know at certain professional sporting events there are network cameras that

have the 360 and you feel like you're sitting in a seat. So, providing those types of

avenues. Even like a dedicated Webcam to an event or a sporting center where

you could log in and watch.

Additionally, a participant explored the value of connecting with other online students

outside of the EDTECH department in a common learning management system:

I think there needs to be one common place online students can go to interact, you

know? So, I don't know if it's one LMS site, or if it's a, you know, discussion board

somewhere that kind of connects online students within different programs to

each other.

94

Further, a participant explored the idea of online students (specifically, educators) from

other institutions being able to connect:

My interaction with other students has not necessarily been with students but

rather with other educators which I guess we're all students in a sense. But, yeah

being able to connect with them in other places like Facebook groups for teachers

and community forums that are set up by other institutions.

The potential to expand and connect with students outside the EDTECH program, and

even University boundaries, establishes a more collaborative, cross-departmental,

approach that would allow for the sharing of ideas, experiences, and knowledge.

However, while these participants discussed their ideas for connecting and making

services and aid more available – other participants felt that these were not necessarily

needed.

Services & Aid Are Not Needed

Some participants indicated that additional services and aid, as well as a

developing a greater sense of community, was not necessarily needed within the program

as it stands. These opinions helped establish a theme of “not needed” within the

qualitative results. However, the reasoning for these opinions varied widely amongst

participants. For example, two participants indicated that their age was a sole factor for

not needing community: “I'm 58 years old - that's not important to me.” While a couple

other participants referenced their duties at work and home as being a source of

community, making this unnecessary within the University: “I mean when you're, you

know a graduate student, and you're already kind of in your career and you've probably

got a family et cetera. There's not a whole lot that you want extra.” and: “When you get

95

into graduate level work and everybody has a lot of people have family, spouses, or

children or whatever - they have full time employment. So, you aren't looking as much for

stuff to do on the weekend.” This participant further explained, that in his opinion, there is

a difference in the community needs between undergraduate students and graduate

students: “You know, it's interesting. I'm so busy. Especially when you get into graduate

level stuff. Everybody has a life. It's not like you're doing undergrad work and

everybody's life was the college.”

In addition to personal factors, one participant felt that the online program was

there to offer an end to a means:

I want to take the class I wanted to get. You know? I want to move on to the next

class and it isn't about establishing relationships. It's about get the course done

and move on. So yeah. Yeah, I think there's something that that the university -

especially now maybe at an undergrad degree - but I would think at a Master's

degree, you know, where even at the Doctorate the student is probably not

seeking relationships and community through an online course.

This was further explored by another participant who noted that forcing

community building events or required services could impact students negatively: “I

think it goes back to I keep saying: availability. And so, I feel like they're certainly not

intruding on me. They're not making doing community more work for students which I

might resent, I suppose.” This variety in answers within this theme made it difficult to

pinpoint why some students may feel this way. When reviewing participant employment

status (Table 4.37) to see if it played a role (as some students referenced their career as

being time consuming) in student desire for services and aid, a consistent outcome was

96

not present. Because of the variety of answers within this section, paired with the results

of the previous themes, the result establishes a precedent that individual students have

individual needs that should be considered. However, it should be noted that each of the

participants coded as “services and aid are not needed” within this section were

additionally coded as needing/discussing an aid or service at some point within their

interview – making this theme somewhat indecisive.

Table 4.27 Interview Participants’ Employment Information

Frequency Percent

Employment Status

Full Time 8 80.0

Part Time 2 20.0

Phase III: Mixing the Results

The third and final phase of this study sought to answer the third research

question: “In what way do the themes from the semi-structured interviews inform the

overall quantitative results from the SCI-2 survey?” To answer this question, the

qualitative themes that emerged from the semi-structured interviews, as well as the

content of the interviews, were reviewed for connections to the quantitative SCI-2 results

(both subscales and total index). Bringing together these sets of data allows for proper

mixing and further information pertaining to how these two measures relate.

The mixing of these results occurred in two parts: First, connections were sought

between the interview participants’ SCI-2 total index scores and associated themes from

their interviews. This data was analyzed and compared to seek whether and how different

groups informed the overall results. In the second part, the quantitative means of the SCI-

2 subscales were connected directly to the qualitative interview themes in order to

understand if and how the two sets of data relate. These two processes of analysis

97

allowed for a deeper investigation of whether and how the qualitative and quantitative

results might mix to inform one another.

SCI-2 Total Index and Interview Themes

The total index – which scores the participant’s sense of community overall – was

reviewed for each participant in order to understand how these scores related to the

student interviews. The interview participants represented a variety of total index scores

(Table 4.28), with four students representing a lower index score (23 or below), two

students representing a higher index score (48-72) and four students representing a mid-

range index score (24 – 47). The SCI-2 has a total index score range of 0 – 72.

Table 4.28 Interview Participant's Total Index Frequencies

Frequency

Total Index Score 12.00 1

18.00 1

22.00 1

23.00 1

32.00 1

37.00 1

44.00 2

48.00 1

54.00 1

Total 10

First, the four low index score participants were reviewed to see how their total

index related to their interview themes. Interestingly, despite scoring their overall sense

of community as low, three of the four participants had an interview statement coded for

“services not needed” within their interviews. However, as noted within the qualitative

results, this theme is not necessarily a catch-all as all three of these students also

recommended many other potential services in other areas of their interview – indicating

98

their desire to “improve services and aid” (Table 4.29). The results for these participants

are not consistent.

Table 4.29 Interview Themes and Related SCI-2 Subscales

SCI-2 Participants Qualitative Themes

Coded One Participant

Qualitative Themes

Coded for Two + Participants

Low Index Score

Participants (N=4)

Cohorts

Memorabilia

Applicable Emails


Existing Services & Aid

Ideas for Services & Aid


Mid Index Score

Participants (N=4)


Applicable Emails




High Index Score

Participants (N=2)

Applicable Emails



Memorabilia


Cohorts


This lack of consistency is also true amongst students with high index scores.

While one participant was coded in the “services and aid are not needed” theme, again,

this student was also coded in the other themes, suggesting areas of improvement for

services and aid (Table 4.29). The other participant that scored high in their index was an

on-campus employee and Northwest University undergrad who was happy with the

University, and therefore scored it high in her SCI-2, but this participant was concerned

that had she not been on campus that her accessibility to services would be limited.

Further, this student was not satisfied with her interaction with peers in an online

program versus in her on-campus experiences. Again, the SCI-2 total index did not

necessarily relate to one particular qualitative theme.

99

Four students represented the mid-range of the SCI-2 total index and five specific

themes were mentioned amongst these participants. Once again, there was not a single

theme that was agreed upon by all four of these students. However, the mid-range

participants did have themes excluded (as they were not brought up) from their group,

including memorabilia and cohorts. Like the two other groups, students in the mid-range

had two or more participants state that services are not needed, but, again – reported ideas

for services at some point in their interview. This inconsistency may indicate an initial

reservation from the participants to suggest ideas. However, as comfort increased within

the interviews students might have felt inclined to share more. Similarly, some

participants might have felt apprehensive about how much they shared (in terms of

services and aid) and attempted to rectify their concerns by suggesting that services and

aid may not be needed.

In looking at patterns between the SCI-2 total index scores and interview themes,

the only theme that was mentioned by two or more students across all SCI-2 scores was

the mention of existing services. This could indicate the importance of providing (or at

least attempting to provide) equal access to all on-campus services to online students as

they appear to be well aware of what they have and don’t have access to. Beyond existing

services, any common patterns amongst mentioned themes were difficult to draw and not

always consistent. Because of this, selecting students to interview based on their SCI-2

index scores alone may not heed to most consistent results and may not further inform

either set of data. Picking only students who score low, mid, or high on their SCI-2 total

index may not yield the specific information one would guess. Instead, having a wide

representation of students with carrying SCI-2 scores allows for different ideas and areas

100

of improvement to be addressed. Also, attention should be paid to themes that arise in all

SCI-2 score ranges, as these are likely the most important areas of improvement. Of

course, the limited sample of this study may have influenced these results.

SCI-2 Subscales and Interview Themes

Despite the results of these individual students, when looking at specific subscales

in the quantitative data with all participants included, patterns do begin to emerge and the

qualitative interview themes begin to shape a roadmap of how to address these scores.

For example, the interview content of each theme connected in some manner to one SCI-

2 subscale or more (Table 4.30). In order to further explore how the interview specifically

informs the results of the SCI-2 survey, each subscale is reviewed individually, allowing

for the comparison of the mean score of each subscale to the interview results (Table

4.31).

Table 4.30 Interview Themes & Related SCI-2 Subscales

Qualitative Theme Quantitative SCI-2 Subscale

Applicable Emails Membership; Influence

Cohorts Membership; Shared Emotional Connection

Counseling & Advising Reinforcement of Needs

Existing Services & Aid Reinforcement of Needs; Influence

Ideas for Services & Aid Reinforcement of Needs; Influence; Shared

Emotional Connection

Memorabilia Membership

Services & Aid Are Not Needed Reinforcement of Needs; Influence

101

Table 4.31 SCI-2 & Interview Themes Mixed Results

Subscale Quantitative

Mean

Minimum Maximum Related Qualitative Theme(s)

Reinforcement

of Needs

7.69 0.00 18.00 Counseling & Advising




Membership

5.32

0.00

18.00

Applicable Emails

Cohorts

Memorabilia

Influence

6.35

0.00

18.00

Applicable Emails




Shared

Emotional

Connection

5.75

0.00

18.00

Cohorts


Reinforcement of Needs

The reinforcement of needs subscale boasted the highest mean of the four

subscales (N=7.69), indicating that this portion of the sense of community was being met

the most. This mean is supported by the interview results, with many participants

indicating that they felt that services and aid were not needed. The definition of

reinforcement of needs states: “This is the feeling that members’ needs will be met by the

resources received through their membership in the group” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p.

9). By indicating that services are not needed, many of the interviewed students

demonstrated that their needs were already being met through their membership

(enrollment) within their program of study at the University. With many students feeling

that their needs pertaining to services and aid have been met, it makes sense that they

would answer these questions in a satisfied manner as these results compliment both the

definition of reinforcement of needs and the highest mean score (N=7.69).

102

However, it should be noted that several other themes fell into this subscale,

including: counseling and advising, existing services and aid, and ideas for services and

aid. These additional student needs also support the results of the survey, for while

reinforcement of needs held the highest mean out of the four subscales (N=7.69), it was

not necessarily a high score. This fact reflects a need for improvement that is discussed

and supported within the participant interviews. By addressing these student perceptions,

reinforcement of needs can be further improved, while also improving the student’s

overall sense of community. These mixed results indicate that the University should

continue to offer current services and aid (maintaining the high mean in the quantitative

results) while possibly heeding the concerns and advice offered within the qualitative

interviews.

Membership

In contrast to the reinforcement of needs, membership was the lowest scoring

subscale (N=5.32) within the survey with the highest prevalence of participants selecting

“Not at All” for all questions (N=7.7%). Again, the interview results supported this

outcome. Membership is defined as “the feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of

personal relatedness” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9). A large number of the interview

participants complained about receiving emails targeting on-campus students – an action

that could lower their feeling of belonging and relatedness as seen in membership. After

all, these emails serve as a reminder that they are a different subset of students. A small

adjustment to how these emails are distributed could potentially have a large impact

within this survey area.

103

In addition to unwanted emails, the interview participants also sought ways in

which they could share a sense of belonging and relatedness through shared school

memorabilia. While participants may not connect with one another physically, the

memorabilia could provide a way in which students can connect to others in their own

region. The memorabilia can create a shared membership for graduates who may not

otherwise recognize their connection. Additionally, some students indicated a desire for a

cohort system in order to connect to their peers – actively seeking a way to relate

personally to others and find a group in which they belong. While not all students may

want to be a part of a cohort system, having such an option could potentially improve

membership amongst online students by creating a forum for personal relatedness.

Overall, the qualitative interviews provided insight and potential action items that

could improve the low mean of the membership subscale (N=5.32). This mixing of the

data again provides consistent results in both the quantitative and qualitative data. Fixing

the issue of unwanted emails, one of the top concerns amongst interviewed students,

could potentially alleviate the concerns in this subscale and provide an increase in both

the subscale mean and the total index value of sense of community.

Influence

Interestingly, influence was represented within the participant interviews, but the

participants themselves broke into two different camps: one group of participants shared

ideas to connect members of the community and provided ways in which the University

could support them. The second group of students communicated that they did not

necessarily need further support from the University to feel a greater sense of influence.

The second group’s results may account for influence being the second highest mean

104

(N=6.35) amongst the group as students were more confident in their role as an online

student at the Northwest University. Despite their differing perspectives, these groups of

participants still come together to represent the larger idea of influence: the sense of the

individual mattering, the group mattering, and the ability to make a difference within the

group, which aligns with McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) definition of influence.

While influence aligns with the results of the SCI-2 within this specific study, it

does appear to be the least informing. This is because influence focuses on the role of the

member as opposed to the responsibility of the providing group. This study focused more

on how the University could help the student, not what the students could do themselves

to improve services and aid. Despite this, influence was regularly reflected in the

students’ desire to connect with one and other and their willingness to provide ideas to

make this a reality. One participant recognized how his ideas could make such a

difference at the department level, noting: “I should probably share this feedback to that

department.” This comfort to share such feedback reflect a level of influence at the

department level, aligns with the SCI-2 survey questions such as, “If there is a problem in

this community, members can get it solved”.

These qualitative results reveal that a degree of comfort that exists at the

department level which should be sought at the University level as well. Mixing this

finding with the quantitative survey – specifically, the individual question results –

provides further insight into how to specifically target the area of influence. Question 16

of the SCI-2 asks students whether they: “have influence over what this community is

like”. This question produced the lowest mean of the six (N=.55). By focusing on giving

online students a voice within the larger community, the University could not only

105

potentially improve the overall mean (N=6.35) of this subscale (and subsequently, the

SCI-2 total index), but could improve influence on both a micro (“I have influence over

what this community is like”) and macro (“This community can influence other

communities”) level overall.

Shared Emotional Connection

Shared emotional connection had the second to lowest mean (N=5.75) of the four

subscales and was represented within the semi-structured interviews in the themes of

cohorts and ideas for services. The results of the participant interviews do inform the

quantitative data related to shared emotional connection in the participant’s desire to

connect with one and other and create venues to further promote this. By establishing

methods and venues in which to connect virtually, the requirements of a shared emotional

connection (e.g. shared history, common places, time together, and experiences) can be

met (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The absence of some of these opportunities likely

accounts for the lower mean represented within the quantitative results.

First, interview participants discussed the benefits of a cohort system – which

would naturally allow for students to have time and shared experiences together as they

work through their program of study. A cohort system could address the Question 20

from the shared emotional connection subscale: “I am with other community members a

lot and enjoy being with them.” This question had the lowest mean (N=4.5) amongst the

subscale questions, which makes sense due to the remote nature of online education.

However, a cohort system could potentially allow Master’s students who desire more

interaction to have it, potentially improving this mean.

106

Doctoral students, who are already in a cohort model, added ideas for how the

larger EDTECH program could meet within common virtual spaces, while participants in

both programs further expressed methods in which to connect to students in other

departments and other Universities in virtual common spaces and/or at virtual events.

These participants identified a need for shared connections and time with peers, students,

and professionals both synchronously and asynchronously. This qualitative content

further supports the quantitative results. Specifically, it addresses Question 21 from the

SCI-2 shared emotional connection subscale which asks whether: “members of this

community have shared important events together, such as holidays, celebrations, or

disasters”? By creating events and spaces for virtual students to connect outside the

classroom online students will have a greater opportunity to connect in such a manner.

This subscale is one that could be addressed at both the micro (department) and macro

(university/collegiate network) level – however, both levels could potentially impact

student satisfaction within this area (as well as in the SCI-2 overall).

Chapter Summary

This chapter reviewed the results of the quantitative SCI-2 survey, the qualitative

semi-structured interviews, and the mixing of these methodologies. Descriptive statistics

were presented within the quantitative phase, while the qualitative phase examined

common themes that emerged within the semi-structured interviews. Lastly, the mixing

phase sought to bring the two sets of data together. Three research questions were

addressed within this section, with the discussion of the conclusions and implications of

the research to follow in the next chapter.

107

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

For a higher learning institution, the ability to expand services beyond online

classrooms and to provide a student-centered approach to membership within the broader

University is relatively unexplored, but is a phenomenon that should be taken into

consideration. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate the sense of

community that online graduate students experience in their higher learning institution. In

this chapter, the results of this study are discussed in further detail, connecting these

results to previous literature pertaining to online sense of community. In doing so, it

becomes possible to explore the implications of students’ sense of community toward the

providing institution, and may also be possible to suggest steps that may be taken to more

strongly support student needs, institutional capabilities, and learning of the highest

quality.

Discussion of Findings

Research Question One

The first research question asked: How do online graduate students perceive their

overall sense of community with a higher learning institution delivering their courses?

The quantitative results of the SCI-2 total index, which included all questions within the

survey, had a mean of 25.12. The total index had a range of 0 – 72 and a midpoint of 36.

The mean (N=25.12) indicates that students had a lower sense of community to the

providing institution (Northwest University) delivering their courses. Further, the four

108

subscales of the SCI-2 (reinforcement of needs, influence, membership, and shared

emotional connection) revealed that “reinforcement of needs” had the highest mean

(N=7.69) while “membership” had the lowest mean (N=5.32) amongst participants

creating a mean range of 5.32 – 7.69.

The SCI-2 currently does not have quartiles in which to rate the total index or

subscales, therefore, for this study the interpretation of the scores being low is based on

the highest and lowest possible scores available. In an effort to better understand the

results obtained within this study, the total index has been broken into four quartiles to

represent four possible results: Very Low, Somewhat Low, Mostly High, and Very High

(Table 5.1). The range between the possible total scores 0 and 72 was divided by 4

allowing for four equal quartiles for the total index score. Creating four quartiles aligns

with the SCI-2 instrument’s design, which provided four answers (Not at All, Somewhat,

Mostly, and Completely) for each question within the SCI-2 total index and related

subscales. By establishing four even quartiles, we can estimate how students answered

these questions and what this says about their sense of community.

In using this formula, we can see that both the mean (25.12) and median (23.00)

of the participant’s (N=91) total index score currently falls within the lower half of the

“Somewhat Low” quartile. This indicates that the overall results of the survey were well

below the midpoint of the possible score, and therefore, on average, participants felt a

somewhat lower sense of community with the University overall.

109

Table 5.1 Total Index Quartiles

Quartile Frequency SCI-2 Score

Very Low 29 00.00 – 18.25

Somewhat Low 37 18.26 – 35.50

Mostly High 25 35.51 – 53.75

Very High 1 53.76 – 72.00

To better interpret and understand the scores of the subscales, quartiles were

created for these sub scores as well (Table 5.2). Using these quartiles and the mean of

each subscale, the reader can again see that participants felt community “somewhat low”

in each area. This evidence aligns with the total index score and demonstrates that there

was not necessarily one subscale that performed noticeably better than the others. As

such, the data may communicate that while reinforcement of needs was the highest

subscale – with a mean of 7.69 – and membership was the lowest with a mean of 5.32 –

all four should be attended to in order to increase a sense of community among students

overall. Based on the results of this study, there is no one subscale that necessarily needs

greater attention than the others in order to improve online graduate student sense of

community.

Table 5.2 SCI-2 Subscale Quartiles

Quartile Frequency SCI-2 Subscales Mean

Very Low 32 00.00 – 04.75

Somewhat Low 40 04.76 – 09.50

Mostly High 19 09.51 – 14.25

Very High 0 14.26 – 18.00

Overall, establishing these quartiles allows for a better understanding of which

level the participants self-assess in terms of sense of community and where desirable

growth could be achieved. Conducting such a survey in a higher learning institution both

before and after focused changes are made may assist the institution in understanding

110

which services, aid, programs, or changes work to improve community and which do not.

Further, scores could potentially be compared across institutions to allow for a

collaborative approach to meeting the needs of asynchronous and/or remote learners. This

study presents an initial look at a sense of community toward a specific learning

institution among a unique population. As such, it is difficult to compare the results here

to a hypothetical exemplar directly to better understand what the Northwest University is

doing right and/or wrong. However, these results may offer a baseline for future research

as discussed later within this chapter.

Research Question Two

The second research question asked: What are the student perceptions of the

services and/or aid a higher learning institution could provide to support its online

graduate students’ sense of community? Students in this study perceived that there were

several services and/or aid that could be provided by the University to support the online

graduate enrollees. Some examples of these items include: cohort grouping, accessible

memorabilia, additional counseling/advising, tutoring, an online writing center, and

revising email delivery for more relevant/applicable messages. Many of the suggested

services and aid within this study imply that supports could be easily adjusted or

implemented to address the online student needs and offer additional opportunities for

interaction. For example, the prominent suggestion for filtering out the fully-online

students from mass emails pertaining to on-campus events. These actions of inclusion

could potentially improve the online graduate student sense of community to the

University overall.

111

Why would the University want to pursue this additional work? In surveying

studies which address a sense of community at the course level, many benefits can be

identified, such as retention rates and student endurance (Liu et al., 2007) and increased

feelings of competence and wellbeing (Gray, 2004; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012).

Additionally, greater student interactions within a course are shown to improve student

academic performance (Murray, Pérez, Geist, & Hedrick, 2013; Zimmerman, 2012).

While this literature focuses on the online sense of community at the course-level, it

would seem that taking steps to ensure that online students are supported by the broader

University could align with literature that is already established pertaining to on-campus

students (Cheng, 2004). Cheng (2004) found that a perceived a sense of community to the

University influences student well-being, attitudes of education, and feelings of self-

efficacy.

However, while many students described the services and aid they would like

included, it should be recognized that some students felt that additional services were not

needed or that increased, required interactions could make them resentful. While students

referenced employment and family matters as keeping them too busy to join in additional

community building, with all interview participants employed, it does not appear that

employment would hinder the students from participating. This aligns with previous

research showing that some online students simply want to be left alone (Drouin, 2008),

perhaps choosing this online educational option with isolation prioritized. However, a

deeper look into student personalities and their desire for community could provide

greater insight into the individual needs of different groups of students.

112

With these varying needs in mind, should an increase in services or aid be

provided - interaction opportunities should not be required, but instead considered as an

open opportunity. Having an option of whether or not to connect allows for students to

demonstrate self-efficacy and responsibility for their own sense of community. As noted

by Rovai (2002c), there should be consideration of the separation between online

students both physically and temporally within a course – not, of course, to limit the

opportunity for interactions – or in the case of this study, the choice for further interaction

outside the classroom setting.

Research Question Three

The final research question asked: In what way do the themes from the semi-

structured interviews inform the overall quantitative results from the SCI-2 survey? The

themes from the semi-structured interview informed the overall qualitative results by

providing specific examples of services and aid that could be expanded to improve the

participant’s sense of community. Further, the themes from the semi-structured interview

indicated that some participants found that services were not needed. However, it should

be noted that no one student stated solely that services were not needed. Instead, students

provided a variety of ideas, while suggesting that services may not be necessary. This

could be a potential area of future research. Overall, the themes aligned with the sub-

scale results of the quantitative survey, and allowed not only for a further understanding

of the total index, but provided insight and specific examples for the SCI-2 subscales too.

In reviewing how the qualitative data informed the quantitative data, two SCI-2

subscales (“influence” and “reinforcement of needs”) were found to be the most strongly

supported by the qualitative themes. These subscales were not only represented by five

113

separate themes each, but were each also representative of the most addressed theme:

existing aid and services (N=8). Because of the high prevalence of these subscales within

the interview themes, should an institution wish to focus on either of these items from the

SCI-2 results the questions used within this study may offer a good template of what to

ask. However, reinforcement of needs may naturally be one of the higher scoring SCI-2

subscales. In a study looking at online learning community development, which also

utilized the SCI-2, Brook and Oliver (2003) found in their initial survey that

reinforcement of needs was one of the highest means of their participants, while

membership was the lowest. These results are similar to the quantitative results of this

study. Additional use of the SCI-2 in the online environment might reveal if this is a

pattern in the online environment, or simply coincidence.

Indeed, membership had the lowest mean and was surprisingly also the least

supported SCI-2 subscale by the qualitative data. While both memorabilia and cohorts

were mentioned within the student interviews, they were addressed by the least number

of students (N=2, N=3 respectively). The theme of applicable emails was more prevalent

(N=5), but was still not one of the most common themes. With membership having the

lowest quantitative mean, this is an area that should be addressed. The importance of

membership derives from social identity theory, which states that a strong sense of

membership can result in a strong emotional bond that is perceived to be felt amongst all

group members (Cameron, 2004). Establishing such a bond amongst online students

could positively influence learning and participation, creating positive outcomes in the

classroom as well (Rovai, 2003). Based on the results of this study, additional interview

questions more aligned to the subscale “membership” may help in identifying more

114

strong and specific services and aid that could contribute to the improvement of this

subscale score.

Overall, conducting these interviews allowed the participants to reflect on their

survey answers - with some participants questioning whether their survey accurately

reflected their perceptions on community: I hope I answered that appropriately among

the survey. I'm trying to reflect back on how I tried to present that, because that's where I

feel like I present the program negatively when I'm being honest. With a topic as multi-

faceted as community, student perceptions are more complicated than a Likert scale may

be able to capture. Should a higher learning institution wish to use the SCI-2 survey with

their students (whether on-campus or online), the researcher highly recommends that a

mixed methods approach be used to provide further context and triangulate different

types of data. However, it should be noted that a variety of students with varying SCI-2

total index scores should be sought in completing interviews as a single group (low, mid,

or high SCI-2 total index) of participants may not be representative of the larger

population, nor provide a complete picture of services and aid needed. Questions specific

to the SCI-2 results may need to be developed to address specific areas of need (i.e.

membership).

Implications

The findings of this study contribute to the larger collection of research pertaining

to the evaluation and building of a sense of community for online students (Dickey, 2004;

Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Lou, Zhang, Qi, 2017; Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Shea,

Li, & Pickett, 2006; Young & Bruce, 2011). By investigating the connection between the

online student and their university, this research expands responsibility for online

115

students’ well-being and sense of belonging beyond the instructor (Alonso, Manrique,

Martinez, & Vines, 2015; Phirangee, Epp & Hewitt, 2016; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006), the

classroom (Moore, 1993), and the college (Young & Bruce, 2011) to the larger

institution. This expansion of responsibility allows for multi-levels of support to assist in

the retention of the student and improve academic performance, much like the support

offered to the on-campus student (Cheng, 2004). The potential for improvement in

retention and academic performance, in addition to student satisfaction, can reflect well

on the University. By improving online student sense of community, and potentially

reducing the transactional distance experienced by online students (Moore, 1993), a

University has the potential to be a premier learning institution for this demographic of

students.

Much as in the classroom, developing opportunities for engagement at the larger

University level will call for a student-centered approach (Lancaster & Topper, 2019;

Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012). While participants within this study provided many ideas

for services and methods of delivery, prior research on sense of community within the

classroom can further provide blueprints for where to start in connecting the larger

population. Approaches within the classroom that have demonstrated success in

promoting online sense of community include: the use of discussion boards (Shin, 2003;

Arslanyilmaz & Sullins, 2013; Rovai 2002c), opportunities for students to establish social

presence within the online environment (Horzum, 2015; Richardson, Maeda, Lv, &

Caskurlu, 2017; Stepich & Ertmer, 2003), active participation and support by the

“instructor” or responsible party for each service (Beaudoin, 2002; Nash, 2005; Easton,

116

2003), and opportunities for students to interact with one and other (Moore, 1989; Drouin

& Vartanian, 2010).

These classroom approaches could be applied within a larger learning

management system utilized by students throughout the University, allowing students to

not only connect with others in their program, but for cross-departmental sharing of

knowledge and experiences. Utilizing Web 2.0 tools to create a fresh approach to

providing content (Moreillon, 2015), and utilizing the service suggestions of the students

themselves (i.e. the tool “Rabbit” as described by a participant in this study) could help

an institution establish an environment that not only promotes community but allows

online students to connect in ways not applicable to the classroom setting. Further, should

new online services be established, the Community of Inquiry (COI) could also serve as a

model for those unfamiliar with building a successful online community that promotes

student online presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999).

Allowing students to connect and collaborate beyond their course could assist in

improving social presence (Garrison, 2007; Rovai, 2002c). Higher levels of social

presence have been shown to increase online student satisfaction (Horzum, 2015),

cognitive presence (Gutiérrez-Santiuste, Rodríguez-Sabiote, & Gallego-Arrufat, 2015)

and perceived learning (Richardson, Maeda, Lv, & Caskurlu, 2017), making social

presence an item that should be addressed. Additionally, student engagement (Ouzts,

2006) and the elimination of feelings of isolation (Drouin & Vartanian, 2010; Lake,

1999) can result as students connect. The application of these approaches outside the

online classroom and within an optional, student-driven community provided by the

University (e.g. writing center, school wide learning management system, etc.) could also

117

create areas for new research expanding on previous literature. Even should no additional

programs, services, or aid be added, it is important to consider the perceptions and

wellbeing of our online student population. Therefore, employing the SCI-2 can at least

give an overview of the state of community within this population.

Recommendations for Future Research

In reviewing the ways in which the interviews support, inform, and clarify the

quantitative results, it is the recommendation of this researcher that should the SCI-2 be

employed to measure an online sense of community that follow-up interviews occur to

further explain the results and offer action steps for how to improve scores. Further, these

interviews offer insight into what is being done well, which can be adapted by other

departments and/or schools. Questions should be developed to inform each subscale,

allowing the themes of the interviews to support the quantitative data and create action

items that can be utilized.

Students from different departments and those who are in different programs of

study (undergraduate, Masters’, Doctorate) would be insightful. This study focused

primarily on graduate students, but the experience of undergraduate students would also

be valuable. Also, studying different educational departments with varying levels of

support might prove to influence the SCI-2 scores and the student interpretation of

community in the University overall. Lastly, looking more closely at student

demographic information as it relates to student scores might provide greater insight.

Further, initiating a personality test in conjunction with the SCI-2 may provide even more

information about the needs to specific student groups.

118

A broader study of several universities could provide further insight into online

students’ sense of community to their providing institution overall. By researching

several different universities across different geographic locations, further examples of

services and aid that may be provided could be collected, analyzed, and compared. This

effort could provide a broader examination of the state of online education in the United

States – or beyond – and allow for a comprehensive look at best practices at the

University level.

Lastly, this study provided several services and aid that could be potentially

implemented into a University to support online students. Further research into the

implementation of these services (whether they are newly added or already in place)

could provide insight into the impact these individual items have on online student sense

of community. Additionally, the impact these services have on transactional distance

could also be reviewed. Research into these individual services, and the possible

consequences, could potentially provide an inclusive list of best practices for online

programs.

Limitations

While this study aimed to represent a variety of genders, races, and ages it is

understood that generalizability may have been limited due to the sample. This study

specifically targeted students enrolled in one online program (EDTECH) at one single

university. Students enrolled in other college programs or those that attend different

universities may have more diverse feeling towards community or experiences. Further,

the qualitative interviews included an even more limited sample in both demographic

119

representation as well as SCI-2 scores. Those who valued community were more willing

to participate in the interview process which again could have hindered generalizability.

Furthermore, the researcher recognizes that there was a potential for insider bias

in that the researcher was enrolled as an online doctorate student within the EDTECH

department as well as remotely attending the University being studied. As such,

transparency was sought in the reporting of the methodology. Additionally, awareness of

the researcher’s position was crucial to ensure that results of the qualitative research

synthesis were not hindered in any way. Several measures, discussed within the first and

third chapters, were put into place to minimize bias within the results, including: a semi-

structured interview protocol, cross-checking between data, member checking of the

results, and bracketing of the insider’s personal experiences during the interview.

Additionally, the researcher selected interview participants that were not a part of her

cohort or whom she had taken courses with previously.

Lastly, participant bias was a potential limitation within this study. As a fellow

student, familiarity between the researcher and participant presented a double-edged

sword. In one view, participants may have felt more comfortable, allowing for more

candid answers (Seidman, 2013). However, participants may have also experienced

participant bias, and could have been attempting to answer correctly or to “help” the

researcher. During the interview process, many of the participants sought to learn more

about the researcher with questions about the researcher’s experience and role within the

program. In order to maintain the validity of the interview, the researcher sought to keep

all such questions outside the scope of the interview questions, moving such queries to

the end of the conversation and then redacting this information to maintain privacy and

120

validity. While additional data could have arisen from these conversations, the lack of

bracketing and potential for bias hindered the reliability of these conversations. The

consistent nature of these questions (i.e. How did you get your advisor to agree to advise

you? Who can I contact in the department for help? How does the dissertation process

work? etc.) raises the potential limitation that students sought to help the researcher in

hopes that the researcher would, in turn, help them. However, it should be noted that

these questions arose from many participants, both those who sought community and

those who felt it was not needed. These repeated occurrences illustrate the need for

community, services, and aid as a measure of support as discussed within this paper.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate that online students within the EDTECH

program felt somewhat connected to the University. This value was supported by

participant interviews, in which the students identified services and aid that would

promote their overall sense of community. The scores of the subscales: membership,

reinforcement of needs, influence, and shared emotional connection were presented in

both the quantitative and qualitative data, allowing for further identification of how

specific services could impact the overall SCI-2 score. A well-balanced approach to these

subscales would likely result in better student reception and improve the total index of

student sense of community overall.

As online programs continue to grow within Universities, retaining online

students, encouraging morale, and improving academic success should be at the forefront

of the University agenda. By addressing a student’s sense of community, the University,

or any other learning organization, is demonstrating recognition that each student is an

121

individual with needs that need to be met beyond just the classroom. While there is no

one-size-fits all solution for making students feel present within the University online,

taking steps to improve interaction, connection, and isolation will communicate an

understanding that online students are not lesser than their brick-and-mortar peers.

Instead, there should be a recognition that the technology used to teach these students can

further be utilized to provide a full University experience – from a shared writing center

to a football fandom, from responsive counseling to coffeehouse chats, and beyond.

122

REFERENCES

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011).

Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory

to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over

time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social,

cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

12(3), 3−22

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online

education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog

Research Group. Retrieved from

http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United

States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.

Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/survey-reports-2014/.

Alonso, F., Manrique, D., Martínez, L., & Viñes, J. M. (2015). Study of the influence of

social relationships among students on knowledge building using a moderately

constructivist learning model. Journal of Educational Computing Research,

51(4), 417-439.

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi

(Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.; pp. 33-60). Athabasca:

Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.

C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument:

123

Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-

institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.

Archibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W. E. (2015). Current mixed

methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 5–33. Retrieved from

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/23006.

Arslanyilmaz, A., & Sullins, J. (2013). The extent of instructor participation in an online

computer science course: How much is enough? Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 14(2), 63–74.

Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 40(5), 518-529.

Barrett, E., & Lally, V. (2000). Meeting new challenges in educational research training:

The signposts for educational research CD‐ROM. British Educational Research

Journal, 26(2), 271-290.

Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Helping to make online learning less isolating.

TechTrends, 53(4), 56-60.

Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online

student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 147-155.

Bernard, R. H. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., et

al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education.

Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.

Breunig, M. C., O'Connell, T. S., Todd, S., Anderson, L., & Young, A. (2010). The

impact of outdoor pursuits on college students' perceived sense of community.

Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 551-572.

Brook, C. J., & Oliver, R. G. (2003). Exploring online learning community development:

The relative importance of influencing factors. Proceedings of Annual Conference

124

of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. (pp.

63-73). Adelaide, SA. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary

Education.

Cameron, J. (2004). A three factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3(3), 239-

262.

Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, R., & Kinsel, E. (2007). Role adjustment for learners in

an online community of inquiry: Identifying the challenges of incoming online

learners. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching

Technologies, 2(1), 1-16.

Chavis, D.M., Lee, K.S., & Acosta J.D. (2008). The Sense of Community (SCI) Revised:

The Reliability and Validity of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd International

Community Psychology Conference, Lisboa, Portugal.

Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students' sense of campus community: What it means, and what to

do about it. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 216-234.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e‐learning: online participation and

student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663.

Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the relationship between student communication

interaction and sense of community. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 153-162.

DeLyser, D. (2001). “Do you really live here?” Thoughts on insider research.

Geographical Review, 91(1), 441-453.

Derrick, M. & Wighting, M. (2015). Student Achievement in Higher Education. In D.

Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015-Society for Information

125

Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1137-1141). Las

Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in

Education (AACE). Retrieved from: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/150150/.

Dickey, M. (2004). The impact of web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation

and alienation in a web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learning,

19(3), 279-291.

Drouin, M. A. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community

and satisfaction, achievement, and retention in an online course. The Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 267-294.

Drouin, M., & Vartanian, L. R. (2010). Students’ feelings of and desire for sense of

community in face-to-face and online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 11(3), 147-159.

Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor's role in online distance

learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87-105.

Fosnacht, K., Sarraf, S., Howe, E., & Peck, L. K. (2017). How important are high

response rates for college surveys? The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 245-

265.

Fritsch, H. (1997). Host contacted, waiting for reply. Final report and documentation of

the Virtual Seminar for Professional Development in Distance Education (pp. 355

– 378). Oldenburg: Bibliotecks und Informations Systems der Universitat

Oldenburg (Virtual seminar held January –March).

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and

teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-

72.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and

Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105.

126

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online

learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance

Education, 19(3), 133-148.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in

online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61-74.

Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of

Distance Education, 19(1), 20-34.

Goertzel, T., & Fashing, J. (1981). The myth of the normal curve: A theoretical critique

and examination of its role in teaching and research. Humanity and Society, 5, 14-

31.

Guest, G. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141–151.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461179

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.

doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903

Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2015).

Cognitive presence through social and teaching presence in communities of

inquiry: A correlational–predictive study. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 31(3).

Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of

online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1-

11.

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The

Internet and higher education, 3(1-2), 41-61.

Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2012). "Everybody is their own island":

Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 123-144.

127

Hesse-Biber, S., & Griffin, A. J. (2013). Internet-mediated technologies and mixed

methods research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,

7(1), 43–61. http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812451791

Horzum, M. B. (2015). Interaction, structure, social presence, and satisfaction in online

learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology

Education, 11(3), 505-512.

Husserl, E. (1964). The idea of phenomenology (W. P. Alston & G. Nakhnikian, Trans.).

The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential

explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.

Jacobs, J., & Archie, T. (2008). Investigating sense of community in first-year college

students. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(3), 282-285.

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J, & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed

methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:

10.1177/1558689806298224

Lake, D. (1999). Reducing isolation for distance students: An on-line initiative. Open

Learning, 14(3), 14-23.

Lancaster, S. J., & Topper, A. (2019). Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered

Online Graduate Program: A Case Study in a College of Education. In Student-

Centered Virtual Learning Environments in Higher Education (pp. 157-184). IGI

Global.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J. & Lee, S. H. (2007). Does sense of community

matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning

communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-

24.

128

Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community among

language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 187–

212.

Lounsbury, J. W., & DeNeui, D. (1996). Collegiate psychological sense of community in

relation to size of college/university and extroversion. Journal of Community

Psychology, 24(4), 381-394.

Lowenthal, P. R., & Snelson, C. (2017). In search of a better understanding of social

presence: An investigation into how researchers define social presence. Distance

Education, 38(2), 141-159.

Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on students' sense

of community in e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 115, 153-160.

Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor

intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers &

Education, 40(3), 237-253.

McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.

Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6−23.

Mitchell, M., & Jolley, J. (2007). Research design explained. California: Thomas

Wadsworth.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of


Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical

Principles of Distance Education. (p 22-38) New York: Routledge.

Moreillon, J. (2015). Increasing interactivity in the online learning environment: Using

digital tools to support students in socially constructed meaning-making.

TechTrends, 59(3), 41-47.

Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Principles and procedures of mixed methods design.

Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

129

Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2013). Student Interaction with content

in online and hybrid courses: Leading horses to the proverbial water. Informing

Science. The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 16, 99-115.

Nash, S. (2005). Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning theory:

Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-

Learning and Learning Objects, 1(1), 217-228.

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What

can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling

designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.

Ouzts, K. (2006). Sense of community in online courses. The Quarterly Review of


Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out

or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.

Phirangee, K., Epp, C. D., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between

facilitation methods, students' sense of community, and their online behaviors.

Online Learning, 20(2), 134-154.

Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments:

An exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 10(1).

Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to

students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis.

Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in

relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 7(1), 68−88.

Ridenour CS, Newman I. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive

continuum. Carbondale: South. Ill. Univ. Press

130

Roblyer, M., & Ekhaml, L. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? Arubric

for assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance

Learning Administration. Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/distance/roblyer32.html

Rovai, A. P. (2002a). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.

Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.

Rovai, A. P. (2002b). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence

in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319-332.

Rovai, A. P. (2002c). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). Sense of community in a higher education television-based distance

education program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (2),

5-16.

Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). Online course effectiveness: An analysis of

student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance

Education/Revue de l'enseignement a distance, 18(1), 57-73.

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A

comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The

International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1-17.

Saidin, K., & Yaacob, A. (2016). Insider researchers: Challenges & Opportunities.

Proceeding of ICECRS, 1, 849-854. Retrieved from

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154353144.pdf.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE.

Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative

research revisited. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1-8.

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153

131

Serwatka, J. (2003). Assessment in on-line CIS courses. Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 43(3), 16-20.

Shackelford, J., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online

education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. The International Review

of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 228-249. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1339/2317.

Shea, P. (2006). A study of students' sense of learning community in online

environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(10). Retrieved

from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.62&rep=rep1&typ

e=pdf

Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense

of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The

Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175−190.

Shen, D., Nuankhieo, P., Huang, X., Amelung, C., & Lafey, J. (2008). Using social

network analysis to understand sense of community in an online learning

environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 17-36.

Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student–instructor and student– student

interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning

environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120.

Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance

learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69-86.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A

comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201–219.

Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2003). Building community as a critical element of

online course design. Educational Technology, 43(5), 33-43.

132

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of

interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in

online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 9(3), 115-

136.

Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16-21.

Top, E. (2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of

community best predictor of perceived learning. Internet and Higher Education,

15(1), 24-28.

Tung, L. C. (2012). Proactive intervention strategies for improving online student

retention in a Malaysian distance education institution. Journal of Online

Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 312-322.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the

Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American

Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Whiteside, A. L., Dikkers, A. G., & Swan, K. (2017). Social presence in online learning:

Multiple perspectives on practice and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Wighting, M., Nisbet, D., & Spaulding, L. (2009). Relationships between sense of

community and academic achievement: A comparison among high school

students. The International Journal of the Humanities, 7(3), 63-71.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to

drop out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3),

115-127.

Wu, M.L, Richards, K., & Saw, G.K. (2014). Examining a massive multiplayer online

role-playing game as a digital game-based learning platform. Computers in the

Schools, 31(1-2), 65-83. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2013.878975

133

Yang, D., Baldwin, S., & Snelson, C. (2017). Persistence factors revealed: Students’

reflections on completing a fully online program. Distance Education, 38(1), 23-

36.

Yang, D., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of

a content analysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in

asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research &

Development, 59, 43-70.

Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in

online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2). Retrieved from

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no2/young_0611.pdf

Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in

online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed

Learning, 13(4), 152-165.

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no2/young_0611.pdf

134

APPENDIX A

Survey Recruitment Email

135

Dear All,

My name is Shannon Skelcher and I am a doctoral candidate in the department of

Educational Technology at [Northwest University]. As part of my dissertation, I would

like to invite you to participate in a study that would help in the understanding the sense

of community that online graduate students experience in terms of their connection to the

educational institution providing their courses or degree. Your participation is valuable to

the research and will help inform how social experience for online students can be

improved. Please read the following for more information about this study.

1. What is this research study about? This research aims to study online graduate

students’ sense of community to the higher learning institution providing their

education. This study will specifically look at graduate students enrolled in the

department of Educational Technology.

2. Criteria for participation: a) You need to be 18 years of age or older; 2) You have

to be a current graduate student enrolled in the department of Educational Technology

at [Northwest University].

3. What you will do if you participate? If you agree to participate in this study you

will fill out a brief survey assessing your sense of community to [Northwest

University]. You will also have the opportunity to opt-in to a one-on-one interview

about your experiences as a member of the [Northwest University] community. Please

be assured that your responses will be kept completely confidential.

4. How long is the study? If you agree to participate, it will take you no longer than

10 minutes for taking the survey.

5. Compensation & Risk: There is no monetary compensation & there are no known

risks or inconveniences for participating in this study.

If you have any questions regarding this research, please contact the principal

investigator Shannon Skelcher ([email protected]). Thank you very

much for your interests and we look forward to your participation!

If for some reason you do not wish to do this, you may contact the Institutional Review

Board, which is concerned with the protection of volunteers in research projects. You

may reach the board office between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, by

calling (208) 426-5401 or by writing: Institutional Review Board, Office of Research

Compliance, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr., Boise, ID 83725-1138.

To participate in this study, please access the consent form via this link:

https://boisestate.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6tAyKayEsRajubH

mailto:[email protected]

https://boisestate.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6tAyKayEsRajubH

136

APPENDIX B

Student Survey

Sense of Community Index Scale – 2

137

[Northwest University] 2018: Sense of Community Survey - Skelcher

We are interested in understanding the sense of community that online graduate students

experience in terms of their connection to the educational institution providing their

courses or degree. You will be asked to complete the Sense of Community Index – 2

Scale (Chavis, Lee, & Acosta, 2008) to assess your sense of community to [Northwest

University]. Please be assured that your responses will be kept completely

confidential.

The study should take you around 15 minutes to complete. There is no incentive for

participation. However, when filling out the survey, you will reflect on your experiences

within your online program of study. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You

have the right to withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason, and without any

prejudice.

There are no known risks or inconveniences for participating in this study. However, you

are free to decline to answer any questions you do not wish to answer or to stop your

participation at any time. For this research project, we are requesting demographic

information. Due to the make-up of Idaho’s population, the combined answers to these

questions may make an individual person identifiable. We will make every effort to

protect participants’ confidentiality. However, if you are uncomfortable answering any of

these questions, you may leave them blank.

If you would like to contact the Principal Investigator in the study to discuss this

research, please e-mail Shannon Skelcher at [email protected] or (307)

214-8485. The student advisor for this research and Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Dazhi

Yang, can also be contacted at [email protected] or (208) 426-3212. If for some

reason you do not wish to do this, you may contact the Institutional Review Board, which

is concerned with the protection of volunteers in research projects. You may reach the

board office between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, by calling (208)

426-5401 or by writing: Institutional Review Board, Office of Research Compliance,

Boise State University, 1910 University Dr., Boise, ID 83725-1138.

By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is

voluntary, you are 18 years of age, and that you are aware that you may choose to

terminate your participation in the study at any time and for any reason. Please print this

page for your own records.

Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some

features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.

o I consent, begin the study

o I do not consent, I do not wish to participate

138

Demographic Information

What is your age group?

o 18 to 24 years

o 25 to 34 years

o 35 to 44 years

o 45 to 54 years

o 55 to 64 years

o 65 or older

What is your sex?

o Male

o Female

o Transgender

Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be:

▢ White

▢ Black or African American

▢ American Indian or Alaska Native

▢ Asian

▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

▢ Other ________________________________________________

139

Are you now married, widowed, divorced, separated or never married?

o Married

o Widowed

o Divorced

o Separated

o Never Married

Do you have children under the age of 18?

o Yes

o No

o Pregnant

What is your current employment status?

o Employed full time (40 or more hours per week)

o Employed part time (up to 39 hours per week)

o Unemployed and currently looking for work

o Unemployed and not currently looking for work

o Student

o Retired

o Homemaker

o Self-employed

o Unable to Work

Please select the degree program you are currently enrolled in for this school year:

140

▢ Master's Degree

▢ Doctoral Degree

▢ Graduate Certificate

▢ Other (please explain): ______________________________________________

How many years have you been enrolled at [Northwest University]?

o 1

o 2

o 3

o 4

o 5 or more.

Have you ever completed any postgraduate work at a college/university other than

[Northwest University]?

o Yes

o No

Have you ever visited the [Northwest University] campus, in [Northwest], in person?

o Yes

o No

141

SENSE OF COMMUNITY INDEX II

The following questions about community refer to: [Northwest University] **

** NOT the Department of Educational Technology

How important is it to you to feel a sense of community with other community

members?

1

Prefer Not to be Part

of This Community

2

Not Important

at All

3

Not Very Important

4

Somewhat Important

5

Important

6

Very Important

o o o o o o

How well do each of the following statements represent how you feel about this

community?

142

Not at All Somewhat Mostly Completely

1. I get important needs of mine met because I am part of this community.

o o o o

2. Community members and I value the same things.

o o o o

3. This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.

o o o o

4. Being a member of this community makes me feel good.

o o o o

5. When I have a problem, I can talk about it with members of this community.

o o o o

6. People in this community have similar needs, priorities, and goals.

o o o o

7. I can trust people in this community.

o o o o

143

8. I can recognize most of the members of this community.

o o o o

9. Most community members know me.

o o o o

10. This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes, signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.

o o o o

11. I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.

o o o o

12. Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.

o o o o

13. Fitting into this community is important to me.

o o o o

14. This community can influence other communities.

o o o o

144

15. I care about what other community members think of me.

o o o o

16. I have influence over what this community is like.

o o o o

17. If there is a problem in this community, members can get it solved.

o o o o

18. This community has good leaders.

o o o o 19. It is very important to me to be a part of this community.

o o o o

20. I am with other community members a lot and enjoy being with them.

o o o o

21. I expect to be a part of this community for a long time.

o o o o

145

22. Members of this community have shared important events together, such as holidays, celebrations, or disasters.

o o o o

23. I feel hopeful about the future of this community.

o o o o

24. Members of this community care about each other.

o o o o

Are you interested in participating in a follow-up interview (via Google Hangouts)

regarding your sense of community and experiences at [Northwest University] as an

online graduate student? Those selected to participate will be contacted via email.

o Yes

o No

146

APPENDIX C

Interview Email

147

Dear (Survey Respondent),

Hello again! I am conducting interviews as part of my dissertation seeking to gather data

of the sense of community that online graduate students experience in terms of their

connection to the educational institution ([Northwest University]) providing their courses

or degree. In the previous survey, you indicated that you may be interested in providing

further valuable, first-hand information from your own perspective. I am writing to ask if

you are still interested in participating in an interview via Google Hangouts?

The interview takes around 20 minutes and audio from this interview will be recorded. I

hope to collect and record your perspectives on being an online graduate student at

[Northwest University]. Your responses in this interview will be kept strictly

confidential. For each interview, I will assign an individual code in place of your name to

ensure that personal identifiers are not revealed during the analysis and write up of any

findings. While there is no compensation for participating in this interview, I do

appreciate your willingness to expand or add to the research. It is my hope that the

information provided by this study will help promote understanding and services

institutions provide to other online students.

If you are interested in participating please respond to this email with a day and time that

works best with your schedule and I will work to meet your availability. Please also reach

out with any questions or feedback you may have pertaining to this study.

Thank you for your consideration!

Shannon Skelcher

148

APPENDIX D

Interview Protocol

149

Introduction

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. My name is Shannon

Skelcher and I am a doctoral student in the department of Educational Technology. I will

be facilitating the interview today. Before we get started with the interview questions, I

would like to share some information about the study and interview:

The purpose of this interview is to follow up on the Sense of Community Index 2 survey

that you took pertaining to your sense of community to [Northwest University]. The data

collected within this interview will be used to provide insight into the online graduate

student experiences within their perception of community and belonging to their

institution. The interview responses may also provide insight to the survey results.

The interview will last about twenty minutes. You may choose to ask me to stop the

interview at any time. There are no known risks or inconveniences for participating in

this study. However, you are free to decline to answer any questions you do not wish to

answer or to stop your participation at any time. Please know that your identity will, of

course, remain confidential to only the researcher. None of your answers will be linked

back to you in any way or form.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

First, I would like to explain a sense of community for you as defined by Chavis, who

created the Sense of Community Index 2 survey that you took prior to this interview.

Chavis defines a sense of community as: "a feeling that members have of belonging, a

feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that

members' needs will be met through their commitment to be together."

Questions

1. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?

2. How long have you been a student at [Northwest University]?

3. Have you taken an online course prior to starting the EDTECH program?

4. How do you, personally define a sense of community?

5. Do you perceive that there is a community amongst online students within the

EDTECH department at [Northwest University]?

6. Do you perceive that there is a community amongst online students within

[Northwest University] as a whole?

7. Do you consider yourself a member of the [Northwest University] community?

8. Would you identify yourself as a [Northwest Mascot]?

9. In your opinion, what does the University do to promote community for their

online students?

10. What could the University do to improve a sense of community for online

students?

11. Are there any services, programs, or events offered to on-campus students that

you would like offered remotely?

150

Closing

Those are all of the questions that I have. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Thank you very much for your participation and for your time! Have a good day.

151

APPENDIX E

Additional Interview Questions

152

Do you think that your community will improve with your cohort as you guys are in the

program longer? Or do you think that the distance is always going to play a factor?

Do you think that having a cohort system would be more appealing to you at the master's

level?

Do you like the cohort system?

Have you ever wanted to connect with students outside of the EDTECH program - other

online students in other programs?

Do you have any desire to connect with online students in other programs at Boise State?

153

APPENDIX F

IRB Approval

154

This research was conducted with approval of the Institutional Review Board at Boise

State University, protocol #101-SB18-163.

online graduate students’ sense of community to …

Documents